4 ms·

Driver livestreams on TikTok as she apparently hits and kills man in Chicago

64 points by c420 11mo ago

montroser 11mo ago
We now need an ignition interlock device for these people -- that will shut down the car if there's a phone inside that's not in airplane mode. Like they have for DUI doofuses.
- helterskelter 11mo ago
  Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Same idea as hate crimes, just for social media.
  - bronson 11mo ago
    Clout enhancement clause
  - gruez 11mo ago
    >Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Sounds like something that could be easily abused for cracking down on filming police or similar. Filming ICE agents arresting someone and posting on tiktok? "obstruction of justice", plus they're obviously doing it "for social media". Same for whistleblowers or security researchers.
  - montroser 11mo ago
    Yeah, because it's just extra stupid and tragic. If kids are involved then the extra sentence should quadruple.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    That doesn't actually work. The problem is people think they're not going to hit anyone and then it doesn't matter what the penalty is because they're discounting the risk of it happening to begin with. Nobody would be doing it who expected to receive the existing penalty for negligent homicide. You don't need to convince them that the penalty is high, you need to convince them that the risk is high.
    - bombcar 11mo ago
      Which is why you have to “excessively” punish the behavior you want to stop - not killing people while filming while driving, but simply filming while driving.
      - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
        That's still the same thing. What matters here is if people expect an actual penalty of any kind. Draconian penalties never help. On top of that, people are less likely to know whether there is even a law against those things since it's much less intuitively obvious. What you need to do is make them understand that it's dangerous, not to make them understand that it's illegal. People don't care about penalties unless they expect to be caught and this is one of the things where it's hard to consistently catch people in the act.
- lukan 11mo ago
  There are also other passengers who could use it without problem. So no. We simply need to take away the driving licence of such people.
  - toomuchtodo 11mo ago
    Car still starts without a license is the problem, and these people do not care.
    - procaryote 11mo ago
      Put them in prison then. Don't make cars worse for everyone else
- conradfr 11mo ago
  That's not realistic due to GPS and music. Maybe a warning with a eye tracker or something...
  - montroser 11mo ago
    Listen to the radio and use a map? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Or just don't run people over while livestreaming and you can keep your Apple Maps and Spotify.
    - mgerdts 11mo ago
      In ye olde days, drivers wrestling with maps were also criticized as being distracted and dangerous. Having been a driver in ye olde days in situations where a map was needed, I can confidently say that GPS initiated while stopped and used throughout a trip is far safer than the driver using a paper map while driving.
    - eszed 11mo ago
      Using a paper map while driving can be way more distracting than a GPS. We really don't want to push people back to doing that. Your last two sentences point in the correct direction: we can't micro-target every behavior that might possibly become a dangerous distraction, because that's just about everything. Driving safely depends on self-regulation, and people incapable of self-regulating (to a minimum standard) shouldn't be granted the privilege of a license.
      - montroser 11mo ago
        Yeah, not while driving. Before we had GPS, people would look at the map before setting off if need be. But fair point that maybe the people who are addicted to their phone are not the people who are going to diligently study the map and remember directions before they start moving. Either way, there was a whole century of people driving just fine before satnav.
        eszed 11mo ago
- wutwutwat 11mo ago
  We've been able to track eye movement across a computer screen for a good 5 years to be able to see what their gaze is set to, providing heatmaps and dwell metrics. Someone just needs to put that in a car. We've also got lidar based cruise control systems to maintain distance as well as panic brake systems that can react to something in front of the vehicle faster than a human, which is partially there to account for people texting and driving while flying up on a red light with stopped traffic. We have all the tech needed to make it damn near impossible for a 2 ton mass of steal to just unflinchingly mow someone down, yet we live in a world where it's cheaper to not make those things standard, even knowing without it, more people will die than with it.
- peterbecich 11mo ago
  This would never be implemented I realize but here is a possible solution: New law: driver's phone must be in semi-disabled mode The phone can already infer it is inside moving vehicle. The bigger challenge is, how to determine the phone belongs to the driver? Say N passengers in car (including driver), each with cell phone. When phone infers moving vehicle, it attempts to mesh with other phones in the vehicle. If N=1, driver is solo, phone semi-disables If N>1, phones ask users to vote on who is the driver. Result: 1 phone disabled (Voting tie disables both/all) The only inconvenience here is to a passenger with a phone-less driver.
ncr100 11mo ago
(Re USA) Over 30 States ban holding your phone while driving All States except for Montana ban texting while driving No States ban complete non-usage of cell phones while driving
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic-safety/distracted.html https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic-safety/dis... > Illinois law prohibits the use of electronic communication devices to write, send, or read text messages, emails, or other electronic communications while driving. > In 2024, legislation went into effect that also made it illegal to use teleconferencing apps, watch videos, or access social media sites while driving. > Drivers who are in a crash resulting from distracted driving may face criminal penalties and incarceration.
  - gruez 11mo ago
    What's the difference between "other electronic communications" and "teleconferencing apps", compared to a phone call? Or is there a specific carve out for that?
    - gavinsyancey 11mo ago
      The reading of the first law sounds like it's oriented towards textual communication; the second law expands it to include video as well. AIUI neither one bans a voice-only phone call so long as you are looking at the road and not your phone.
    - mminer237 11mo ago
      The law is basically written to say that doing anything at all with your phone is illegal while driving. Then it carves out exceptions to say it's allowed if you're calling 911, you're doing it hands-free, etc. But then they separately say those exceptions do not apply apply to video calls or watching videos or accessing social media on your phone. Even if you mount your phone, you can't watch YouTube or livestream yourself or attend Zoom court or browse Reddit hands-free while driving.
ApolloFortyNine 11mo ago
>Lucas’s son-in-law, Chris King, told the Lake and McHenry County Scanner that news of the video made his family “hold our loss tighter to our hearts”. >“We … will continue to pray for what the driver must be going through,” King reportedly said. “We are trying to find our ways to live, without someone we cherished so much.” Damn, I wouldn't be saying anything like praying for the driver after something like that.
- DontchaKnowit 11mo ago
  Thats the christian ethos
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jugganaut 11mo ago
    [dead]
  - wutwutwat 11mo ago
    or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life
    - darth_avocado 11mo ago
      or, sometimes, you just don’t want to make harsh public statements after a loss of a loved one.
      - wutwutwat 11mo ago
        or, just, generally being a good human, esp when it matters, in times like these, instead of only when things are going well, then dropping that whenever something bad happens when it's more impactful and important to stay a good human.
xnx 11mo ago
Recording social media while driving should be totally unacceptable. Jon Caramanica records pop music reviews for the New York Times while driving. It's completely asinine.
- Bender 11mo ago
  All US states have distracted driving laws. Some people get away with it for too long. Doesn't have to involve a phone. Could involve sex toys, receiving fellatio, arguing with a passenger, reading a map, putting on make-up, etc... People get tickets every day for such things.
  - zdragnar 11mo ago
    In most cases, distracted driving is a secondary cause for a stop. Police need some other reason to pull the driver over. That's what the hands free laws in most states addressed- using a cellphone while driving became a primary offense, something you could be pulled over for or ticketed for even if you hadn't done anything else wrong. The ultimate goal is to stop people from distracted driving before they cause an accident, but it's not always easy to see who should be stopped and who shouldn't, so a lot of people get away with it anyway.
    - Bender 11mo ago
      Police need some other reason to pull the driver over. That is false. People get pulled over all the time for obvious distractions. Someone addicted to watching the hundreds of bodycam video channels. Perhaps the cops in your area were told to focus on other things. The Sheriff in my area are somewhat like that whereas the state troopers will happily pull someone over that looks suspicious or has out of state plates distractions aside. Enforcement and abuse vary by location.
      - mothballed 11mo ago
        Of course, although I think pulling people over for such infraction makes things much more unsafe. What is learned is if you put your phone lower than the dash, it becomes a lot harder to prove. Of course, much harder to see the road while you're staring under your dash, but the optimization society has suggested is that if you use your phone you should do it in a more dangerous way so you aren't caught.
olalonde 11mo ago
I believe this is the video (the camera is facing the driver so not very graphic): https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTMst5SPG/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTMst5SPG/
walletdrainer 11mo ago
Here’s the video, you can clearly see just how distracted she was https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246622 https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246...
andrewinardeer 11mo ago
Social media was a bad idea monetized.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]

64 points by c420 11mo ago

We now need an ignition interlock device for these people -- that will shut down the car if there's a phone inside that's not in airplane mode. Like they have for DUI doofuses.

helterskelter 11mo ago
Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Same idea as hate crimes, just for social media.
- bronson 11mo ago
  Clout enhancement clause
- gruez 11mo ago
  >Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Sounds like something that could be easily abused for cracking down on filming police or similar. Filming ICE agents arresting someone and posting on tiktok? "obstruction of justice", plus they're obviously doing it "for social media". Same for whistleblowers or security researchers.
- montroser 11mo ago
  Yeah, because it's just extra stupid and tragic. If kids are involved then the extra sentence should quadruple.
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  That doesn't actually work. The problem is people think they're not going to hit anyone and then it doesn't matter what the penalty is because they're discounting the risk of it happening to begin with. Nobody would be doing it who expected to receive the existing penalty for negligent homicide. You don't need to convince them that the penalty is high, you need to convince them that the risk is high.
  - bombcar 11mo ago
    Which is why you have to “excessively” punish the behavior you want to stop - not killing people while filming while driving, but simply filming while driving.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      That's still the same thing. What matters here is if people expect an actual penalty of any kind. Draconian penalties never help. On top of that, people are less likely to know whether there is even a law against those things since it's much less intuitively obvious. What you need to do is make them understand that it's dangerous, not to make them understand that it's illegal. People don't care about penalties unless they expect to be caught and this is one of the things where it's hard to consistently catch people in the act.
lukan 11mo ago
There are also other passengers who could use it without problem. So no. We simply need to take away the driving licence of such people.
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  Car still starts without a license is the problem, and these people do not care.
  - procaryote 11mo ago
    Put them in prison then. Don't make cars worse for everyone else
conradfr 11mo ago
That's not realistic due to GPS and music. Maybe a warning with a eye tracker or something...
- montroser 11mo ago
  Listen to the radio and use a map? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Or just don't run people over while livestreaming and you can keep your Apple Maps and Spotify.
  - mgerdts 11mo ago
    In ye olde days, drivers wrestling with maps were also criticized as being distracted and dangerous. Having been a driver in ye olde days in situations where a map was needed, I can confidently say that GPS initiated while stopped and used throughout a trip is far safer than the driver using a paper map while driving.
  - eszed 11mo ago
    Using a paper map while driving can be way more distracting than a GPS. We really don't want to push people back to doing that. Your last two sentences point in the correct direction: we can't micro-target every behavior that might possibly become a dangerous distraction, because that's just about everything. Driving safely depends on self-regulation, and people incapable of self-regulating (to a minimum standard) shouldn't be granted the privilege of a license.
    - montroser 11mo ago
      Yeah, not while driving. Before we had GPS, people would look at the map before setting off if need be. But fair point that maybe the people who are addicted to their phone are not the people who are going to diligently study the map and remember directions before they start moving. Either way, there was a whole century of people driving just fine before satnav.
      - eszed 11mo ago
wutwutwat 11mo ago
We've been able to track eye movement across a computer screen for a good 5 years to be able to see what their gaze is set to, providing heatmaps and dwell metrics. Someone just needs to put that in a car. We've also got lidar based cruise control systems to maintain distance as well as panic brake systems that can react to something in front of the vehicle faster than a human, which is partially there to account for people texting and driving while flying up on a red light with stopped traffic. We have all the tech needed to make it damn near impossible for a 2 ton mass of steal to just unflinchingly mow someone down, yet we live in a world where it's cheaper to not make those things standard, even knowing without it, more people will die than with it.
peterbecich 11mo ago
This would never be implemented I realize but here is a possible solution: New law: driver's phone must be in semi-disabled mode The phone can already infer it is inside moving vehicle. The bigger challenge is, how to determine the phone belongs to the driver? Say N passengers in car (including driver), each with cell phone. When phone infers moving vehicle, it attempts to mesh with other phones in the vehicle. If N=1, driver is solo, phone semi-disables If N>1, phones ask users to vote on who is the driver. Result: 1 phone disabled (Voting tie disables both/all) The only inconvenience here is to a passenger with a phone-less driver.

ncr100 11mo ago

(Re USA) Over 30 States ban holding your phone while driving All States except for Montana ban texting while driving No States ban complete non-usage of cell phones while driving

toomuchtodo 11mo ago
https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic-safety/distracted.html https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic-safety/dis... > Illinois law prohibits the use of electronic communication devices to write, send, or read text messages, emails, or other electronic communications while driving. > In 2024, legislation went into effect that also made it illegal to use teleconferencing apps, watch videos, or access social media sites while driving. > Drivers who are in a crash resulting from distracted driving may face criminal penalties and incarceration.
- gruez 11mo ago
  What's the difference between "other electronic communications" and "teleconferencing apps", compared to a phone call? Or is there a specific carve out for that?
  - gavinsyancey 11mo ago
    The reading of the first law sounds like it's oriented towards textual communication; the second law expands it to include video as well. AIUI neither one bans a voice-only phone call so long as you are looking at the road and not your phone.
  - mminer237 11mo ago
    The law is basically written to say that doing anything at all with your phone is illegal while driving. Then it carves out exceptions to say it's allowed if you're calling 911, you're doing it hands-free, etc. But then they separately say those exceptions do not apply apply to video calls or watching videos or accessing social media on your phone. Even if you mount your phone, you can't watch YouTube or livestream yourself or attend Zoom court or browse Reddit hands-free while driving.

ApolloFortyNine 11mo ago

>Lucas’s son-in-law, Chris King, told the Lake and McHenry County Scanner that news of the video made his family “hold our loss tighter to our hearts”. >“We … will continue to pray for what the driver must be going through,” King reportedly said. “We are trying to find our ways to live, without someone we cherished so much.” Damn, I wouldn't be saying anything like praying for the driver after something like that.

DontchaKnowit 11mo ago
Thats the christian ethos
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- jugganaut 11mo ago
  [dead]
- wutwutwat 11mo ago
  or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life
  - darth_avocado 11mo ago
    or, sometimes, you just don’t want to make harsh public statements after a loss of a loved one.
    - wutwutwat 11mo ago
      or, just, generally being a good human, esp when it matters, in times like these, instead of only when things are going well, then dropping that whenever something bad happens when it's more impactful and important to stay a good human.

xnx 11mo ago

Recording social media while driving should be totally unacceptable. Jon Caramanica records pop music reviews for the New York Times while driving. It's completely asinine.

Bender 11mo ago
All US states have distracted driving laws. Some people get away with it for too long. Doesn't have to involve a phone. Could involve sex toys, receiving fellatio, arguing with a passenger, reading a map, putting on make-up, etc... People get tickets every day for such things.
- zdragnar 11mo ago
  In most cases, distracted driving is a secondary cause for a stop. Police need some other reason to pull the driver over. That's what the hands free laws in most states addressed- using a cellphone while driving became a primary offense, something you could be pulled over for or ticketed for even if you hadn't done anything else wrong. The ultimate goal is to stop people from distracted driving before they cause an accident, but it's not always easy to see who should be stopped and who shouldn't, so a lot of people get away with it anyway.
  - Bender 11mo ago
    Police need some other reason to pull the driver over. That is false. People get pulled over all the time for obvious distractions. Someone addicted to watching the hundreds of bodycam video channels. Perhaps the cops in your area were told to focus on other things. The Sheriff in my area are somewhat like that whereas the state troopers will happily pull someone over that looks suspicious or has out of state plates distractions aside. Enforcement and abuse vary by location.
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      Of course, although I think pulling people over for such infraction makes things much more unsafe. What is learned is if you put your phone lower than the dash, it becomes a lot harder to prove. Of course, much harder to see the road while you're staring under your dash, but the optimization society has suggested is that if you use your phone you should do it in a more dangerous way so you aren't caught.

olalonde 11mo ago

I believe this is the video (the camera is facing the driver so not very graphic): https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTMst5SPG/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTMst5SPG/

walletdrainer 11mo ago

Here’s the video, you can clearly see just how distracted she was https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246622 https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246...

andrewinardeer 11mo ago

Social media was a bad idea monetized.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]