Driver playing with iPhone runs over cyclists

[rnhood]

and unfortunately, one is dead. The other isn't in very good shape. Really sad.

KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. (WSVN) -- According to police, the driver responsible for a Key Biscayne accident that took the life of one cyclist and left a second in the hospital has been arrested.

Twenty-one-year-old Alejandro Alvarez was arrested after admitting to the fatal accident. "The subject's vehicle was traveling eastbound ... when it struck two cyclists, that were also traveling in the same direction," said Miami-Dade Police Detective Daniel Ferrin.

According to police, the accident happened at around 5:23 a.m. Wednesday, along the eastbound lanes of Crandon Boulevard, near Crandon Park Marina.

http://www.wsvn.com/story/27901442/driver-arrested-in-fatal-key-biscayne-accident

[Dr Luxurious]

F'ing texting!!
The penalty for texting while driving needs to be made MUCH more severe.

[druptight]

Sounds like we have a double whammy here, looking at iphone and probably drunk. Unnecessary crap all around. Hopefully he gets 15 years to think about it behind bars.

[thwart]

According to that article, he was likely also DWI.

Perhaps more of a factor than the driver's iPhone story.

[Steelman]

F'ing texting!!
The penalty for texting while driving needs to be made MUCH more severe.

Using electronics (and not just texting) should be treated like what it is, impaired driving.

[abalone]

F'ing texting!!
The penalty for texting while driving needs to be made MUCH more severe.


The article doesn't say he was texting.

[druptight]

The article doesn't say he was texting.

Trolling much? It's semantics - says he was "changing the song" - same idea. Someone's dead whether it be because he was changing a song, texting, drunk, or all three.

[malcolm]

Seems to be the common story. Distracted driver runs over cyclist from behind. Drunk is bad enough but at least drunk, unless passed out you are looking forward. Phone you are not looking in the direction you are traveling it really doesn't matter if you are actively texting, reading text or messing with the ipod features. I also suspect you don't have the same awareness of how long your vision has been averted while drunk and I suspect your degree of menace is not linear.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

It really doesn't matter WHY he hit them (texting, changing music, etc.), the point is he was distracted, possibly drunk, and killed someone. Cell phones are a common cause of distraction, but they aren't the only cause. I recall hearing about a delivery truck driver in my home town who killed a girl whose car had stalled in an intersection. He didn't see her in time because he had looked down to change the radio dial (back when knobs were a thing, long before cell phones).

The problem with texting laws is that they are basically useless as preventative measures. Rarely cop can reliably determine whether someone is texting or dialing their phone. So those laws only serve as a means to increase the penalty AFTER a tragedy has already occurred. If a driver is not sufficiently dissuaded by the possibility that s/he might kill someone, I don't think adding a secondary/aggravating charge related to texting carries any deterrence value.

[makoti]

According to that article, he was likely also DWI.

Perhaps more of a factor than the driver's iPhone story.

ANOTHER drunk texter?! Jeez. I was hoping the doof in MD was the only one that stupid...
Edit: Now I see he is (was, I guess) a student at U of Md, about 30 miles from where Tom was killed. Unreal.

[oldpotatoe]

And with more and more cars becoming WiFi compatible, it's not going to get better. And the $ spent on congressional bribes from lobbyists will keep it happening.

I am sure there is a way to disable driver's cellie when car is in motion.

[p nut]

Surely some car manufacurter's got to have thought up of an alert system (much like the lane drift warning in some cars) for situations like this. Thoughts go out the the fallen and injured cyclists and their families.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . so that distracted driving--i.e., texting--can be a primary reason for a traffic stop. In other words, previously, if a cop saw you looking down and thought you were texting, he could not stop you just for that. He had to find some other excuse. Now he can pull you over based only on his assessment that you were texting.

But agreed somewhat. No matter what the laws are, unless local police chiefs ORDER their LEO's to MAKE enforcement a lasting priority, the officers in the field are not going to move it up on their priority list. Additionally, until local prosecutors make it SOP to press for full sentencing on texting offenses--no plea bargains--AND publicize that fact, the public is not going to get the message that there are firm, certain penalties.

BBD

It really doesn't matter WHY he hit them (texting, changing music, etc.), the point is he was distracted, possibly drunk, and killed someone. Cell phones are a common cause of distraction, but they aren't the only cause. I recall hearing about a delivery truck driver in my home town who killed a girl whose car had stalled in an intersection. He didn't see her in time because he had looked down to change the radio dial (back when knobs were a thing, long before cell phones).

The problem with texting laws is that they are basically useless as preventative measures. Rarely cop can reliably determine whether someone is texting or dialing their phone. So those laws only serve as a means to increase the penalty AFTER a tragedy has already occurred. If a driver is not sufficiently dissuaded by the possibility that s/he might kill someone, I don't think adding a secondary/aggravating charge related to texting carries any deterrence value.

[shovelhd]

Hey, at least he was arrested.

[Grant McLean]

He also left the scene, went home and started to fake damage to his
car to cover up the collision by hitting his car with golf clubs.

W T F is wrong with people?

-g

[OtayBW]

Damn!