Slashdot Mirror
New System Detects Calls While Driving
Gary writes "Talking on your cellphone while driving isn't a crime in most states, but it should be. Studies have shown that people who drive and talk are many times more likely to have an accident. A new company is releasing a device to automatically detect drivers talking on their cell phones. Instead of police officers needing to observe a cellphone in use, the system automatically detects a cell phone call and records which car was making the call." The article is fairly light on details, but it would be interesting to see how the system differentiates from a driver talking on a cell phone versus a mere passenger.
Who thinks a blow up doll in the car will fool this technology?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Brace yourselves for the flood of people who will say "Sure, *statistically* it's dangerous to talk on a cell phone and drive, but I'm an exception! Really!"
Also be on the look out for the classic "It's no worse than talking to a passenger!"
But this sounds rather invasive to me.
And what the hell is this shooting your car with paintballs? Or EMPing all your electronics? WTF?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Speeding tickets are more about shaving the sheep (taxing the public) than encouraging public safety, imho. If they made another stupid and arbitrary law that allows police to tax people for doing such simple things as talking on the phone, I'll have to start thinking really hard about what country I'm living in. We give up too many of our simple freedoms to people who enjoy to give themselves new powers.
Automatic law enforcement is cheap but it's not the way to go. Make it illegal and slap offenders with a hard punishment to deter people. It works well enough with all other reasonable laws, so why do it differently with this one?
So does this detect the driver speaking on a cell phone or simply someone in the car talking on a cell phone? TFA did not give details. Seems like a big problem if they mistakenly identify a car and a ticket is issued for a passenger using a phone.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
I support drunk driving laws. And I have heard that cell driving is similar in impairment to drink driving (though I think the studies so far have been less than perfectly rigorous). So that makes me tend to support the idea of cell driving laws.
However, at the same time, I see plenty of erratic and dangerous drivers who aren't talking on cell phones. Why is a cell driving law a better idea than simply getting tougher on poor driving? Or at least shouldn't getting tougher on poor driving come first?
It seems like the main (or at least first) question should not be, "Are you on a cell phone?" but, "Do you present a risk to others?"
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I don't see a system that shoots paintballs or shuts off cell phones getting too far in the US. This really goes too far and can potentially create more chaos than it is worth. I can almost hear the lawsuits being filed now the first time one of those paintballs causes a wreck, or when a physician talking to a patient has his/her phone disabled rushing to the hospital. Technology is a great thing, but ultimately laws should be enforced via human education and discipline.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
"The article is fairly light on details, but it would be interesting to see how the system differentiates from a driver talking on a cell phone versus a mere passenger."
Next time you are in city traffic, look around and note how many people are in a car where a cell phone is being used in a non-hands free manner.
I communte 80 miles roundtrip to my office. I don't like when people are wondering all over the road and then I realize they are talking on their cell phone. But heck, what makes that behavior rise to the level of criminality? Doesn't civil law amply address the issue of irresponsible people who cause accidents when talking on their cell phone (or eating a bag of Doritos, putting on make-up, reading the paper, futzing with the Nav system... whatever...)?
The system should also automatically detect children in the car, and report those to the police. Or how about radios? That's easy - just report every car. From here:
(Of course, I understand that radios in cars are far more common than cell phones. Was merely making a point.)
The Online Slang Dictionary
I may have personally experienced this tech in action. I live in Chicago area and about a month back I tried to call my wife, who I knew was driving, and I got a interesting reply..."the person you are calling is currently driving". The call then ended abruptly. I called a few minutes later and it started working although my wife was still driving....kinda interesting.
The police don't need to detect whether a passenger or a driver is the one talking. The vast majority of cars only have a single occupant (carpool lanes, anyone?) and they'll cherry-pick those, while ignoring the cars with multiple occupants. There will still be more than enough cars to keep them busy.
No it shouldn't.
Distracted driving should be a crime. IF the person is observed driving distracted, then ticket them. I don't care why they were distracted, whether it is cell phone use, putting on make up, or getting a blow job.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Anyone remember the mythbusters where they tested and determined that driving proficiency was greater when drunk than while talking on a cellphone? Cellphone use while driving should be illegal. Hell, people talking to the driver should be illegal.
The company's site explains (in annoying Flash) that the system merely photographs the car. Later, the photos are manually inspected to determine whether it was the driver who was using the phone.
"The company attaches a paint gun to mark the car, or even an EMP gun that can disable the offending cell phone."
This is going to go SPECTACULARLY when somebody with a pacemaker is talking on their cell phone.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Tell you what, Nanny State, you criminalize the phone. But in exchange I want massive reductions in my car insurance because now everyone is safe and snug.
I have no problem as long as their is equal effort in citing drivers for loud music, eating, putting on makeup, shaving, smoking, having their dog run back and forth on the front seat, DVD players active while driving, reading billboards, applying bumper stickers or any other things that drivers do all the time that lead to distraction.
I work as a consultant, I have to answer my phone or I have no business. I do use a hands free device and its usually very short but based on this logic tuckers shouldn't have cb's and cops shouldn't have their radios. Bad drivers are going to be bad drivers regardless of whether there is a phone involved.
If there has to be a law, make it one that requires hands free devices that can be cited only when being pulled over for another offense, much like the way most states enforce seatbelt laws. That kind of leads to another question why is wearing a motorcycle helmet considered a personal choice yet wearing a seat belt isn't?
Dont fool yourself this has nothing to do with protecting people or even getting people to drive more responsibly, its all about revenue.
I go for a bicycle ride every morning and have noticed that in about 1 of 4 cars, the driver is either not looking at the road while dialing, talking or just finishing a call. If I have to cross traffic, I make sure the driver sees and acknowledges my presence. If they are on a cell phone, even at a stop sign, they are either oblivious to my presence or the invisibility cloak is working.
1011 1010 1101 1100 0000 1111 1111 1110 1110
Is the technology smart enough to tell the difference between data and voice?
The key difference is that you can't usually crash your airliner if you lose attention for a split second.
A car traveling at 80kph makes 22 meters per second, that's more than the width of the average road. And all you need to die is to lose control for a moment.
... doesn't mean you should. While I would love to see people obey the law about not talking on the phone (or shaving, or eating a bowl of cereal -- I kid you not, I've seen it on Lake Shore Drive) while driving, what about the first time someone with an open window gets a paintball in the face? Or someone near the car? Or someone walking down the street gets their cell phone jammed?
No, this is just plain stupid. I (and others here) have been able to come up with really simple reasons why this is a bad idea at a rate faster than I can type them.
There are too many laws like this now -- stupid reactionary laws that hurt as many innocent people as lawbreakers. When politicians (the vast majority of whom NEVER touch as much as a cell phone, leaving such things to their staff) start dictating how technology should be used, it never goes well.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
So, you penalize safety-conscious people who don't use mobile phones while driving, and at the same time, encourage driving with a phone? That doesn't sound very productive.
Drivers should be taught to focus on driving and minimize distractions. Using the phone is not necessary while driving. It has nothing to do with the operational radio communications that a pilot performs. And the phone system is not optimized for driving, like the radio system is for flying. Aircraft also tend not to fly in close proximity to one another, with hundreds of them mashed up together in lanes.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I've always been told the difficult part about driving isn't actually the "driving", it's avoiding other cars. While yes, pilots do have to do more, the flight computer _does_ do a lot of it for them, and passenger jets are never flying closely in formation so the pilot really doesn't need a good reaction time. If he dozes off for a second, would it really matter?
Also keep in mind that big planes typically have two or more pilots. Cars only have one driver.
Not really, because those accidents are far too common - and few people are prosecuted because of it. I think the idea is to reduce the accidents in the first place. Civil law after the fact can't bring victims back to life, so it doesn't really address the problem at all.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I suppose this toy is smart enough not to nail you for receiving SMS messages?
What about Blackberrys? They are quite chatty.
GMs OnStar system uses cell technology. What about them?
I would rather see law makers think about what they do and allocate resources to enforce laws, and not expect technic-magically enforcement.
SO's that want to argue while you are trying to drive. that is far more distracting than any cell phone use.
The trouble with talking on a cell phone is that the person you're talking to isn't part of your driving experience. You don't have the same problem talking to a passenger in the car for instance. You also don't have the same problem listening to the radio. If something happens on the road, you just ignore the radio and pay attention to the road. The passenger sees what's happening and the rhythm of the conversation fits what's happening on the road. The person on the other end of the cell phone, on the other hand, doesn't accomodate traffic conditions. You can't ignore that person so your attention gets divided with the result that you aren't paying enough attention to your driving.
Using the radio is part of flying. When you're using the radio you shouldn't have to react to surprises. In fact, when you're flying in controlled airspace, there should be no surprises. The two cases (cell phone in the car vs. radio in the cockpit) aren't even close to the same.
Simple as that.
If nobody was allowed to drive without being trained and tested to the same safety standards as pilots then you wouldn't have those bad drivers. But anyone who tried to introduce such a law would get instantly voted out of office by the vast numbers of bad drivers who would lose their licences under the new regime.
I believe that the same studies also indicated that talking to the person in the car is as dangerous as talking on the cell phone.
I remember in a couple of states that the police, for a while, outlawed the use of CB radios under the guise of it being dangerous because you took 1 hand off of the steering wheel.
The study needs to determine if the the person has the ability to talk and drive at the same time. There are some people I have seen driving who lack the brain power to breath and drive at the same time.
Fight Spammers!
"many times more likely to have an accident. "
Yet, its NOT an accident. Risk is not a crime. Risk is why we have the Patriot Act. Risk is why we are at war in Iraq and Afganestan. Risk is why we have wiretapping and GITMO.
You people are foolish to invest so much trust in government to take care of you. Security is not a fair price for freedom.
Sure, increase the penalty when an accident occurs. But until there is an actual accident, there is no victim. No crime.
Yet they're able to fly vehicles much more challenging to operate than cars, trucks and other road vehicles, remaining more safe statistically speaking, all while constantly making radio calls that are just as distracting as mobile calls are to drivers.
If you have a two-second emergency in an airplane, someone dropped the ball. If you have a two-second emergency in an automobile, well, you're just in rush hour traffic.
(Not to mention that re-testing everyone on the road is as impractical as deporting every illegal immigrant in the country.)
HORSESHIT BUZZWORD PARANOID KNEE-JERK FUCKTARD CRAP!
/eh.. I don't feel this strongly.. but who cares.. this is the Internet.
Goddamn.. how the fuck does this make it to the front page of Slashdot? The article suggests using an EMP gun to disable the offending cell phone? So, it's some kind of perfect EMP that targets ONLY the cell phone and ignores the car's electronic systems - systems REQUIRED for slamming on the brakes... What the fuck?
And, the system not only can distinguish between drivers and passengers talking on the cell phones... but it can also detect whether drivers are properly using bluetooth devices.. or even built-into-the-car bluetooth devices that enable hands-free talking at all times?
God.. what a bunch of fucking total morons. Seriously.. whoever decides money needs spending on this crap.. whoever decides a knee-jerk reactionary law banning use of cell phones while driving because they're distracting just because it's newfangled technology that everyone seems to agree is fucking useful while ignoring all other distractions that have been around forever - eating, talking to passengers, looking at scenery, smoking, doing drugs, reading directions, playing with the fucking stereo, road head..
Seriously.. whoever takes this seriously needs to understand that he or she is a fucking moron who needs to start thinking about the entire picture and quit trying to solve society's problems with one specific fucking instant knee-jerk at a time.
God.. fucking morons.. FUCK YOU.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I'd say the difference from an operational standpoint is that driving a stick-shift, your right hand is only on the shifter when you want to change gears, which is typically for brief periods in between long periods of hands on the wheel. Also, taking your hand off the wheel to shift gears is part of the driving task, and so it's easier to integrate it with the rest of the actions involved in driving. Talking on a cell phone without a hands-free setup ties up one of your hands for as long as you're on the phone, and it's a completely separate task from driving, and so it has the potential to be more distracting. Personally, I drive a stick and talk on my phone at times without hands-free, and I'm able to prioritize the driving over the phone call, and so I'm not afraid to put my phone down and use my hands to drive when needed, even in the middle of a conversation. All you have to do is realize that the driving task risks your life and the lives of those around you, where the phone task only risks your social life. Clearly, the driving task should take precedence for most people. It does seem that certain individuals are not so skilled at multitasking and establishing priorities, even with their lives at stake. Clearly, this is a form of natural selection, although chances are they will kill innocents as well as themselves... Maybe dealing with distractions should be a part of driver's ed and training, although it seems intuitively obvious that the driving task should always take the highest priority...
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Great. Now just tell us where these studies are so we can evaluate them, rather than inviting us to give sheep-like acceptance to the idea.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
These studies are misleading. I would like to compare this data with a driver that is having a conversation with a person that is IN THE CAR WITH THEM. I suspect that in-car conversations are just as distracting as cell-conversations on a hands free setup...if not more distracting. Now, are we going to outlaw passengers?
-h3dge
"Studies have shown that people who drive and talk are many times more likely to have an accident."
Then we should ban talking while driving. They don't say that using the phone is the problem, they say talking is the problem. There should be a nation wide ban on having communications with anyone else inside or outside the car. I think this would be quite difficult to enforce. An easier option would be to ban passengers along with cell phones. Without a passenger or a cell phone there would be no conversations. No talking, no accident.
Dekker Dreyer
"Talking on your cellphone while driving isn't a crime in most states, but it should be."
No it shouldn't. ANYTHING can distract a driver--the radio, passengers, kids yelling in the car, stupid fucking ads on the side of the road that are getting more and more brazen every day, etc etc etc. Should we just make all of that illegal?
Drunk driving is illegal for a reason--there's no good reason to drink and drive. There are, however, many good reasons to talk on the phone while driving. I agree that talking on the phone while driving can be dangerous, but that doesn't mean it should be totally banned.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
At least one "system like OnStar" (allegedly not OnStar itself) has been used by an investigative agency to bug an alleged crook's car. (Such systems are, after all, remote-controlled cell speakerphones.)
In one case the agency bugged a car for a month, until the operators of the system demanded they cease and desist because the monopolization of the channel was imparing their emergency service. (Not to mention that, if the buggee had been involved in an actual emergeny, hitting the button would have made a "beep" on the agency's tape rather than bringing the aid he was paying for.)
Now if this system is deployed I can imagine some inter-agency foulups, as cops pull over the bugged cars to ticket the drivers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If I were making the law, I'd make it perfectly legal to drive while on the cell phone, but you would have to have your cell phone number prominently displayed to the front and rear of the vehicle. If you want to talk, great, but be ready for others to call and let you know if you are driving unsafely. And yes, that means they would have to be displaying their number to call you from their car.
Learn to love Alaska
First of all, I'll point out the blindingly obvious. Something can be legal yet still be unsafe.
In the case of driving, you could quite easily be driving along the road and be in danger, not least of all because you don't drive in isolation: all those other cars and other vehicles around you are only a split-second away from presenting you with a multi-ton hazard that could potentially end your life.
When you're driving from A to B, your priority should be to get their safely:
1. without causing a hazard to yourself and others; and
2. without falling foul of any hazards that others might cause you.
It doesn't take a genius to see that anything that distracts your attention from anything that might fall into the second category, or that decreases your reaction time, could potentially kill you.
Anybody who thinks that a hands-free kit will mitigate the risks of driving whilst talking on a phone is deluded. Multiple studies have been carried out on this subject and, to my knowledge, all have clearly shown that the ability of a driver to deal with road hazards is just as impeded when he's talking via a hands-free kit as it would be if he was cradling the phone next to his head. (Which, by the way, is about the same level of impairment that you'd experience if you were drunk.)
If you want to test this yourself then try this out. Fire up your favourite RTS, FPS or MMORPG and get busy killing. Then make a hands-free call to a friend whilst attempting to play the game at your usual tempo. Keep talking and listening to the other person as you would do if you weren't playing the game (obviously, don't talk about the game, talk about something different!) and I guarantee you that you gameplay will suffer, simply because you react to things less quickly than you would have .
Now translate that loss of performance to the road. And then work out what matters most, that phone call or your personal safety.
Do yourselves, your passengers and those around you all a favour. Save the phone calls for when you get there.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
"Talking on your cellphone while driving isn't a crime in most states, but it should be."
There are already laws for dangerous driving in EVERY state.
We don't need more laws.
It's covered.
Oh, but you say if you outlaw cellphone driving, people would stop doing it.
Right, just like drunk driving.
You, sir, are an asshat.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
all the hands-free setups and commercial two-way radios
the real problem is incompetent drivers and officials
This tech sounds like serious tech, with the buyer being police forces. So why exactly does their website have music playing and a scrolling news story about porn penetration into the mobile phone market?
Attach an EMP gun (or paint gun) to this detector? I am sorry? What on earth for? To disable the phone. Well yeah, that could in theory work, it would also all the electronics in the car itself, any other electronics including pacemakers and offcourse the electronics belonging to anyone standing close enough to the target.
Wouldn't it make more sense to attach, oh I don't know, a camera? Like the ones attached to various other devices that check traffic? Has a single one of these EVER been fitted with an EMP gun and or paint gun?
Then there is the element that a working telephone says absolutly nothing about wether the driver is using it. It might be handsfree, it might be in use by a passenger, it might even be working unattended. There are cars equipped with onboard phones that call the factory to report problems, no idea if this happens while driving but why not? Your car phones home to report a low oil level, next you are being zapped with enough voltage to get a republikans heart beating.
If such a tech does exist, and there is no reason why it shouldn't it is going to be the same as radar-detector-detectors. A police car will simple carry one with it, and use it to inform themselves of an active phone, then using visual verification to see if the driver in question is using it in a way that endangers road safety.
On the other hand I can see a usefull development of this tech. Put it on that sentry gun from korea, arm it with a taser and hang it from the ceiling in public places. Phone rings. ZAP!
Mobile phones may be the clearest example of how techonolgy is both a blessing and a curse. Or maybe they just show us that humans beings just were never meant to live with so many people together.
Boston has a on-demand real-time traffic report service called SmarTraveler. Six other cities have it as well, and doubtless there are similar services by other names. In Massachusetts it's subsidized by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and, as they say "Dial Star-One on your cellular phone, it's a free call."
Obviously the authorities think it's a good idea and want you to access it on your cellular phone. You can also access it via the web and of course via landline phones, so if the authorities don't want you to use it while driving, why did they make it a free star-one cellular call?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Please explain under what system of justice, under the rule of law, criminalizes behavior that is not in and of itself criminal, but because it may lead to criminal behavior? Is it wise to classify people as criminals based on the statistical probability of a sample? No crime would have to have been committed, you'd only have to prove that the percentages, taken from other people, shows a slightly greater chance of a crime being committed. What about inherent characteristics? Statistically, black people are far more likely than others to commit crimes. Applying the principles from the logic propounded in the parent, we should criminalize being black, and imprison all black people, not because as individuals they have committed a crime, but simply because they are more likely to as a group.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Why is a hands free cellphone different than talking to people in your car? Do you want everyone to drive by themselves, or to remain completely silent while driving?
And exactly how is that?! I have a Bluetooth earpiece when I drive (and only when I drive, unlike those who think they're cool by walking around everywhere with one stuck in their ear). My cell phone is almost entirely voice activated. I push one button on my earpiece and that's it. Everything else is vocal .. and this is an older, LG phone that wasn't even the top of the line! I would assume that the newer and the more expensive models have even more voice-activated bells and whistles.
How the hell is pushing a button on an earpiece that you can just barely see in your peripheral vision and giving your phone voice commands anywhere close to being as dangerous as some jackass with a phone plastered to the side of his head who head and has to physically manipulate the buttons in order to get the phone to do what he wants?
I'm really fed up with this enormous, broad brush that you anti-phone-while-driving people use.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Studies have shown that people who drive and talk are many times more likely to have an accident.
:-)
The studies I heard suggested that it was the *conversation* that was distracting, not the phone itself. Thus, talking in the car should also be banned if we go that route. I remember I once ran a red light while arguing with a female companion who was in the car. Ban talkative annoying women, not phones
Table-ized A.I.
I don't care about skill impairment from cell phones.
I care about politeness impairment.
You're Cool Dude driving in your SUV talking to your Cool Friend on your cool phone, then your frame of reference does not include Poor Dude walking on the sidewalk in front of you. Get out of the fucking way and get an SUV and talk on your phone like me, but get out of the way, I'm talking on my phone.
If you deploy this in the US false positives from passengers calling won't be a problem. There are no passengers. Just skip the lone cars in the HOV lanes and you're good. :)
Granted, cell phones don't increase the awareness of drivers who are ignorant of their environment, but there are plenty of good drivers out there who pay attention to their environment. Cell phones really can be left out of the equation, you have good drivers and bad drivers, a cell phone does not make a good driver a bad driver, nor vice versa.
Examples of things bad drivers might do with/without cell phones?
- How often do you see people making turns onto multi-lane roads and not turning into the lane they should turn into? (If people were to turn into the appropriate lane, traffic flow would be less of a problem in certain areas because you could have people making left turns, and right turns onto the same road, going in the same direction, without risking accidents.)
Not an exhaustive list, but you get the point, things you see often that suggest most drivers don't give a lot of consideration to their environment without even taking into account cell phone usage.This is akin to the "let's ban skateboarding and rollerblading" approach that many municipalities have taken to reduce vandalism and accidental injury (ie someone losing control and running into a pedestrian, etc). Vandalism is already a crime, punish them for that. Don't simply make everyone on a skateboard or rollerblades a criminal, and if someone knocks over an old lady accidentally I'm sure there is some form of public recklessness they could be charged with.
Should we really punish everyone because of the shortcomings of others/the majority? Start giving huge fines for reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle, or offering insurance companies the right to right to deny coverage for accidents caused by cell phone use.
If were to ban this and ban that because it's a problem for some, but not all, eventually we'd have a country where we couldn't do anything, and the word freedom wouldn't have much meaning in our daily lives.
--
and yes, I've almost been run over by other drivers that were talking on the phone, but I'm willing to bet their driving record with/without phone isn't so hot. All the same, while talking on a cell phone I've been honked at for not slamming on the gas the second the light turned green. (I actually think they expected that if I weren't talking on the phone I would have peeled out, so anything less was poor driving due to my cell phone?)
Interesting to note that the company mentioned in TFA doesn't even show up on a search
/.?
Maybe they're still working out the kinks on that EMP that somehow kills only cell phones and only those used by drivers. Seriously, why is this on
Dickhead.
Pilots' required reaction times are FAR slower than those of a driver.
I presume you a typical arrogant wanker who thinks HE shouldn't be arrested for using his cell phone while driving...
Why does cell phone use and drunk driving generate such massive disapproval? I don't doubt that they make us worse drivers but so do a lot of things. I'm sure that breaking up with your girlfriend in the car increases your chance of an accident 400%. I bet you which radio shows you listen to have an effect on how likely you are to get in an accident. What's next laws about which radio shows you can listen too?
If the idea was that some activities are just too dangerous to do on the road then arresting EVERYONE for having cell phones isn't the answer. Some people are better drivers than others. Instead only people with no accidents on their record or something would be allowed to talk on the cell phone.
What really gauls me about the whole business is the arbitrary moral approbation involved. Driving drunk is really really bad yet driving while sleepy is just minor misbehavior even though being tipsy and sleepy can be just as dangerous on the road.
Whatever the law needs to practically say we should have no more approbation for the really good driver who gets in his car while a little tipsy than the horribly bad driver who chooses to drive his car (rather than take the train) totally sober. Both are putting other people at the same risk (by assumption) so why is one a worse person than the other?
I just want a coherent criteria that tells me why some sorts of increased driving risk are such a big deal while not others.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
What does it mean to attach a "paint gun mark" to a car? That sounds vaguely like "shooting a car with a paint gun." That's remarkably unsafe for a device that's supposed to save lives. Can it successfully detect if the user has his window rolled down or his convertible top down? Will it miss pedestrians? Damage the car?
And what makes them think that an "EMP gun" can properly localize its effect to disable only the cell phone while leaving the vital elecronic components of the car intact? Not to mention that an EMP pulse doesn't temporarily disable the phone, it destroys its circuitry. No more phone. Have they done any studies to see if a badly timed EMP makes the battery catch fire in the users hand?
And hey, what about the users complying with hands-free laws? They must get their phones fried too, since I'm fairly sure there's no way to distinguish between the two modes of operation aside from, yep, you guessed it, looking at the user.
This is about 17 terrible, halfway thought out ideas. Either April Fools day came late this year or this is a company that really likes the concept of bankruptcy.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
...now I have to carry my paintball gun so I can return fire.
They had cameras in a few places on the vehicle for that research. One of places was in the face of the driver and another right in front of the vehicle plus on the back (I am not sure if that was any cameras on the side of the vehicle). They said that a motorist had driven her car right into a tree during the day, they said that the only reason that did occur was because she was not paying attention, she wasn't talking on the cell, nobody on her car with her, it was during the day in a low traffic road. She was just day dreaming.
Another research that I remember reading said that Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate. In it, the researchers talked about teens showing off while driving with their friends and also about the fact that they are more easily distracted than an adult (over 25) due to their brain growth until they reach 25.
Would a cell phone ban in the cars help anything in these two cases? In my opinion they would do little to nothing.
A few problems with this:
1. I saw nothing about checking whether it was the driver or passenger using the cellphone.
2. They will get sued out of existence the first time the automatic paintball gun hits a nice new expensive car.
3. The EMP.
-- Cars nowadays are highly dependent on their electronic controls. How would the EMP not disable them?
-- If any electronics besides the cellphone are disabled, that would also lead to a lawsuit the company likely could not win.
In short, there are too many problems for this to be practical.
I may be dense but I really don't see the difference between a driver talking on a hands-free cell phone and the same driver having a conversation with a passenger.
You can have just as involved of a conversation and you even have someone you are going to feel compelled to glance at every so often since it's human nature to want to make eye contact for at least parts of a conversation.
Are they going to make it illegal to have conversations in a car altogether?
Let's assume I'm lost on the road, about a mile from where I am supposed to be. I make a call, place the phone on speaker and carefully drive with the directions of the location I'm trying to reach. There are some anti-cellphone people who would say that's dangerous, and I'm on the fence about it. But if it's the only way to find a location we are going to have to allow stuff like that. People get lost and expecting me to make a call on each street corner after pulling over is a bit ridiculous.
That being said I think something has to be done about cellphones, they can be more dangerous than liquor and smoking combined as they take more attention from some people. But at the same time the test I've seen, especially the mythbuster's false science (sorry, but their tests are barely scientific and tend to get false or directed results) tend to rely on "heavy conversation" if you're in a light conversation "I'm at the corner of Park and Green" I have a feeling the effect of a call and the effect of a hands free set is going to be different than if you give the person questions such as "name 5 things in the car", "what did you do all day".
That's not to say people don't have heavy conversations on the phone while driving, in a 24 hour period I saw a guy drive in oncoming traffic, a different guy take a turn onto a 1 way street the wrong way, and a guy come to a dead stop in the middle of the road. Phones can be bad, but they can also be a tool, and that's where we need to take them, back to being a useful tool.
Fire up your favourite RTS, FPS or MMORPG and get busy killing.
Is it that what driving on US roads compares to? Wow, that's farked.
It's really cute that they invented a gadget that detects cell phones.. really, bravo! It's so frickin' hard to scan on the 900/1800mhz cell frequencies and use directional antennae to pinpoint the source. Wow!
Giving this to cops will only make cops that much more obnoxious, and that much more likely to piss me off one day and draw my obsessive-compulsive ire. You can bet your house that the day this system gets implemented, all the cops will bother doing is pulling EVERYONE over who has a cell phone. Well I hope this gadget also detects firearms because I can see a lot of cops getting in trouble over this nosey crap.
Next point: Taxis. How many people use their cell phone while riding in a cab ? I know that if I'm on my way to a business conference, I'm typically on the cell phone coordinating stuff, making use of the long stupid wait while stuck in traffic.
It all boils down to the same story as every conservative argument: stupid people do stupid things. Instead of inventing gadgets and laws that punish everyone for the transgressions of a small group, why don't we just exclude the idiots in the first place ? Some people suck at driving to begin with, even without a phone, music or any other distractions, they still can't drive 10 miles without trading paint or seriously infuriating the person behind/beside them. We need stricter licensing to keep the idiots off the road, then the rest of us, responsible and attentive, we can make our phone calls as needed while the fools ride the bus.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Are we also installing breathalyzers in cars? I mean, It wouldn't bug me much, blow on a little tube; car starts. And if you get a DUI anyway, because your idiot sober friend tricked it, then you can both go to jail!
Cell Phone Users Drive 'Blind' (University of Utah)
You fail.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Those annoying full color commercial billboards popping up all over our highways are "designed" with the express purpose of distracting drivers.
Since a distracted driver is a dangerous driver its not such a streach to reach the conclusion that the signs are actually designed to cause accidents representing a clear and present danger to the very fabric of our society.
Phones are not the problem, whether hands-free, or not. The problem is distraction!
People need to be made aware that whenever they are driving, they have ONE job. That is to get where they are going without being distracted. If they are in a situation where they become distracted, they need to get off of the road, and deal with the distraction.
This applies to any distracting situation, IMO. Phone conversations, Passenger conversations, Misbehaving Kids, etc. GET OFF THE ROAD, then deal with it!
As for those distractions which are created by the driver, Driving Drunk, Eating, Make-up, Shaving, etc., those people seriously need a good ass-kicking (verbal, or physical, I don't care) in order for them to learn to engage their brain. (Yes, I do lump drunk driving in with these other actions, because the driver controls all of them.)
People just need to understand the importance of PAYING ATTENTION to the way they drive. None, of this would be an issue if they just did that.
I'll never forget this. I'm driving up I-5 one evening, and I see a guy with a bumper sticker that says "Would you drive any better if your cellphone was stuck up your [picture of a phone with a slash through it]?"
I pull up next to him and glance over, and he's got his FARKING FLIPPHONE UP TO HIS EAR! Dude is swerving around and his speed is varying by about 10mph in freeway traffic.
I wanted to shoot him. . .
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
Actually, I've found that an intelligent person has no problem with the [game|drive|etc], but has a hard time concentrating on the conversation. My girlfriend hates it when I'm talking to her when I'm driving, because I'll randomly dissapear, then give her a "huh?" and have missed about five minutes of the conversation. A friend of mine is the same way. If I hear road noise, I'll call him back a lot of times because I know he's not paying attention to me. That's fine by me, but a lot of people don't like it.
An idiot, on the other hand, will have a perfect conversation and [get fragged|crash|etc].
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
... repealed their hand-free law, and now drivers can talk freely on their cell phones while driving.
This repealment happened about two weeks ago. Last week I was riding my bike and some bitch on a cellphone was trying to make a turn, and she hopped the curb right in front of me. I bailed off my bike to avoid the imminent collision, and ended up smacking into a telephone pole, breaking my right hand.
The bitch kept driving as if nothing had happened, oblivious to anything apparently except her phone conversation.
I'd sure love to find a way to sue the fuck out of the legislators that got that law repealed.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I don't drive. But I do make cell phone calls in cabs, buses and while riding as a passenger in private cars. Often I'm making calls for the driver, (informing people that we're running late, handling incoming calls etc.) This is much safer for the driver. This system would tag such results. Secondly, many commercial vehicles (cabs, delivery trucks etc.) have GPRS telemetry to keep the central office apprised of their positions at regular intervals, this would trigger these systems (this also includes the covert police tracking modules).
Finally if I didn't like someone, I could always hide a prepaid cellphone ($20) rigged as silent and set for auto-answer in his car, and call silently at regular intervals. Triggering piles of tickets for the victim. Much wackyness ensues!
This system is greatly flawed, because micro waves comeing from a car is now indicative that your using your cell while driving in an unsafe way. lol wonder what they'll do with more than one signal coming from the same car??? lol I GOT IT....the driver MUST have been using both at the same time and the backseat passenger MUST have reached his arms around the driver to keep on driving.
This is Slashdot! Give me the latest gadget, bug, or OS project! This ain't english class so don't confuse the two!
most everybody does it, even if its for 20 seconds to say i'll call you back. you need to outlaw eating food, tending to a child and being drowsy as well if you're going to push for a law against talking on the phone. those are all on par distraction and safety wise.
Don't worry, they will know who's car and phone are in use. By RFID's they can be reasonably certain it's you, unless someone borrows all of your clothes, ha ha. If that's not enough, the 300 times a day your picture will be taken can trace exactly where you are. So don't worry about getting tickets because your passenger makes a call, worry that you are a cow - numbered, observed, medicated and stripped of all ability to protest and learn anything real about the world around them. Total Information Awareness of them means total control and oblivion for you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
WOW, this is so completely bogus it's not even funny. The "Company" site is amateurish at best, paint balls thudding on the car could CAUSE an accident, and EMP would take out not only the phone (permanently), but also the car computer, and all other electronics in a fairly decent radius, causing the car to halt where it is rather abruptly.
/or the possibility that isn't the PASSENGER.
This product is totally bogus and will never happen as stated in this article. That doesn't even cover legal cell phone use with hands-free and
I Call Shenanigans on this!
The Digital Sorceress
cell phones too? They gonna arrest themselves? *groan*.. The people I see causing the issues are the driving texters or the ones not using hands free... just my $.02 though..
Companies that take the safety of their employees seriously (OK, at least they like to be perceived that way) have already banned any use of a phone or two-way radio by the driver.
Examples are Shell and BP.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
At the end of the article:
"...Already in use in a few European countries the system will make it to the US this fall it is designed to detect, identify and cite drivers who break cell phone us laws." . The company attaches a paint gun to mark the car, or even an EMP gun that can disable the offending cell phone."
I just have to sit back for a moment and admire the author's superior command of the English Language.
The Digital Sorceress
From the post to which you're responding:
Seems like your question,
was answered in some fashion that you totally ignored.
Here's another answer for your question: people and the courts generally recognize the necessity of being able to carry passengers in an automobile - indeed, many state laws like this encourage the practice. The "necessity" of being able to talk on a cell phone is far more questionable.
And, BTW, a driver may be charged with reckless driving if a cop observes them visibly paying more attention to one another than to the road. On the other hand, most cell phone conversations look the same, so the officer in question cannot be relied upon to make the distinction. Hence, it makes more sense to ban the totally unnecessary practice of yakking on phones while driving (rather than, say, pulling the fuck into a parking lot like a mature, reasoning adult to converse) than to allow a proven hazard to exist on public roads.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
What about hands free?
I don't like when people are wondering all over the road
How can you tell - do you have telepathy?
Doesn't civil law amply address the issue of irresponsible people who cause accidents
Prevention is better than cure. That way nobody's dead.
What about talking to yourself? I've been known to do it. Would hate to get a ticket from shouting "ARG!! I forgot to stop at Fry's!!!"
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Cameras have replaced cops in speed enforcement.
Time-Calculating toll booths have also replaced cops in speed enforcement.
Cameras have replaced cops in Red Light enforcement.
Cameras have replaced cops in toll enforcement.
Cameras have replaced cops in street patrols.
A soon to come: Cameras replacing cops in Cell Phone violations.
Is it me, or are law enforcement agencies trying to keep their paychecks while doing less work?
Law enforcement agencies say that using cameras reduced workloads on officers, giving them more time on 'other' things. So, if the officers have a reduced workload, then they should have reduced pay, since cameras, not officers, are doing the work of catching/citing traffic violators. Reducing pay for reducing work would allow more room in the budget for more cops, thereby allowing more officers to be available. That could be further augmented in stiffer penalties/fines.
If cops actually got off their asses and CITED violators (and believe me, they are DEFINITELY out there, especially here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia), they could generate MILLIONS of dollars in revenue, enough to hire more officers.
I wouldn't mind paying taxes so much if government employees actually got paid proportionally to the amount of work they did. I just don't see why I should pay a fine that goes into maintaining a staff of officers, if those officers have cameras do most of their work for them. I'd rather pay the camera, and defend myself.
Big Brother can go fuck himself.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
....you cannot legislate out stupidity. There are already laws on the books for idiots that are paying more attention to their phones than the road and it is called "distracted driving" I have seen people that are eating, smoking, talking and putting on makeup on the way to work. All endanger others lives. In fact why not make it illegal to smoke/eat/drink(non-alcohol)/put on makeup/do your hair/read a newspaper/read a map while driving. We do not need more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have and, make people aware that distracted driving is dangerous and unlawful.
Neither can criminal law. When it comes to people's irresponsible behavior behind the wheel, criminalizing behavior does not make the behavior stop. DUI laws are a classic example. Despite tough DUI laws in most states, people continue to drink and drive.
I personally am not prepared to criminalize behavior that is already addressed by Tort Law, and, in fact by Criminal Law, for egregious cases, with vehicle manslaughter.
Ok, I may be dating myself here, but I remember when CB radios gained widespread appeal several years ago. Using a CB required alot more concentration than talking on a cell phone today, but there was never a widespread ban on the technology. As long as drivers today are merely talking on the phone and not texting while driving (which sadly, I know several people who do) it should be much less distracting than the CB's of years past. Perhaps studies should look at more than just cell phone use as the cause accidents rather than trying to completely ban the technology. (especially since I know that half of the State Police officers in my area are on their phone 95% of the time I see them driving around!)
My computer ate my homework and my dog ate my sig.
"The company attaches a paint gun to mark the car".
Right, because no one who is talking on there cell phone is going to be freaked out when their car suddenly gets shot by a paintball or two.
Seriously though, if someone shoots your car with a paint gun you're probably going to get freaked out "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT KA-THUD?!?! DID I HIT SOMEONE?!?". Seems to me that this would just serve to create more accidents.
The article wasn't too specific but I hope they plan on removing this from the final system if it ever is implemented.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
From my experience it is more dangerous to talk on the cell-phone on the surface road than on the freeway.
Another thing is that passengers are as distractive as the cell phone with the exception that they can warn you about the dangers.
And third thing is that most annoying is that cell phone drivers drive slower, not more dangerous. They are not very active on the road.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I found it interesting that Gary's assertion raised far fewer objections than any mention of the Patriot Act.
... it's evil (or even proof that Bush=Hitler) for the government to listen to some phone conversations in the name of saving lives.
So
But it's perfectly OK for the government to BAN some phone conversations in the name of saving lives.
How about allowing people more freedom, but holding them responsible if their exercise of that freedom brings about unfortunate results?
The domain was registered less than a month ago. I concur, this is a hoax of some sort. Domain Name: HWSTUSA.COM Registrar: REGISTER.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.register.com Referral URL: http://www.register.com/ Name Server: DNS01.GPN.REGISTER.COM Name Server: DNS02.GPN.REGISTER.COM Name Server: DNS03.GPN.REGISTER.COM Name Server: DNS04.GPN.REGISTER.COM Name Server: DNS05.GPN.REGISTER.COM Status: clientTransferProhibited Updated Date: 26-may-2007 Creation Date: 25-may-2007 Expiration Date: 25-may-2009
Those same studies determined that there is an increase of accident risk associated with TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CAR.
Are you going to suggest that passengers should be outlawed? Or maybe they should be required by law to wear muzzles? And what about children?
No. This is going too far. I can understand (and support) restricting handset use. I cannot support restricting ALL cell phone use. While it would be nice to have drivers completely free of any and all distractions, it is not realistic by any means.
Although I am a radical liberal by most measures... Mommy State = BAD.
I did a recent trip to California. One of the routes was US101 from SLO to the Bay Area. One thing, I encountered many left lane hogs and 90% of them were high end vehicles with people talking on their phone. You blink you lights to get them to move over but they were pretty obstinate and insisted on sitting there. They even drive UNDER the speed limit.
Because of these quite a few morons, there is a reason why we need laws concerning cell phones and driving.
Another instance, yesterday in Indiana - in one of the posh towns of Carmel. I was behind this man in a Lexus. Light turns green - a left turn signal which don't last too long. I had to honk a couple of times to get him to move. He finally moved and I then proceeded to pass him. Looking at him a couple of times through the rear view mirror, I observed him doing office type of work with his phone, looking at a sheet of paper and looking down quite a bit and then looking up.
The gist of this, when people drive, the task at hand is driving, not talking on the phone, not doing office work, not doing make up or hair. The job is driving which requires full attention. Part of driving is being considerate of others on the road such as getting out of the left lane so others can pass and to allow those who want to driver faster to go on by.
Studies have shown, there is no global warming... What are the studies mentioned here, please? The only result, that I'm aware of, mentioned the increase in risk of about 10%. It may be more than that in reality, but I doubt, it is more than 300%, which would be required to qualify for the "many times more likely" ("many" ought to be more than 3)...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Hmm, increased risk huh? I guess the first 0.0799999% blood alcohol does absolutely nothing. Oh, and being tired is ok too -- so is rain, a minivan, not being a professional driver, having an uncomfortable seat, being concerned, in a hurry, or just plain bored. Oh yeah, and glasses, contacts, a hat, the sun, and the radio. Lest we forget, being new to the area.
There is nothing wrong with increased risk. Drivers' road tests are taken on dry roads, in good cars, and with preparation. If you want to add talking to the road test, by all means do so. But don't make it illegal for Mario Andretti to drive a Ford Taurus at 40km/h with a mobile phone. That's jsut plain stupid -- especially when you let your grandmother drive with 0.79% blood alcohol.
Has anyone considered reducing the ability for a generic call to transfer to the next cell tower? That would cut down on the ability to use a cell phone in a moving vehicle as those calls need to switch cell towers every few miles or more in a city with buildings in the way.
Of course.. for many this may just mean using the redial button continuously.
If you outlaw blow jobs, then only outlaws will get blow jobs.
First of all we're not just talking airliners. Even a 2 seat aircraft has to keep up the comms. Secondly you obviously know nothing about aircraft. Let the speed fall a little and you stall. It's actually harder to fly an aircraft than drive a car. Try landing a plane in a simulator some time (not an arcade style game but a good sim).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
...because they're just as dangerous as talking to a passenger. Let's outlaw that too and force all vehicle occupants to sit inside cones of silence.
Fuckbrain,
Planes travel faster than cars. Pilot reaction times need to be faster by definition. YOu clearly don't know a plane from an aardvark.
I'm the "typical arrogant wanker" that doesn't use his cell phone and doesn't speed but then has to put up with abusive shitheads that do, then honk at you because you're not doing 20km/hr over the limit. Better yet I've once been run off the road by trucks doing 100 in a 40 zone. Speeding and mobile phone usage isn't policed in a rigid enough way to be making up crappy rules.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
"the system automatically detects a cell phone call and records which car was making the call"
Anyone noticed the new onstar stuff, where the car periodically calls up general motors, uploads recent statistics (unsure of what), and you can go check your car's "health" at the onstar website. So there's quite a few new chevrolets out there randomly making calls themselves.
Or (wow, still onstar) how about when the onstar monitor folk notice your car doing something weird and call you up to make sure you're okay? Been a few years, but I vividly remember a "General Motors Big Brother" type writeup in something like Autoweek in which during slalom testing of a new Monte Carlo the nice onstar lady rang into the cabin and said something like "we noticed your g-force sensors were triggered. Were you in an accident?".
If this happens, Chevy drivers can at least have a little fun. "Damn you friendly Onstar Lady! You just got me shot!!!"
If there is a need to stop distracted driving, how about external distractions?
Ban all road-visable billboards, bumper/window stickers, vanity license plates, car colors other than black, white, or grey, and roof over all roadways so nothing in the sky can distract.
How do they distinguish between someone making a call and someone streaming MP3s over a data package?
Well Said.
Seriously, if you can't talk and drive at the same time, I don't want you behind the wheel of a car.
"Now, Mr. Jones, for this part of the test, I want you to drive to the second traffic light and make a legal left-hand turn. Also, using your cell phone, check your voice messages, change your password, and call your mother."
So when your girlfriend mother (sorry, forgot it's a Slashdot for a moment) will scream at the top of her lungs OH MY GOD!! LOOK OUT!!! You will be so much more alert to the fact that truck on the right started to switch the lanes, instead of car on the left or car in front of you? Or you only count cases of people driving with a borg drone, that announces calmly "Truck on the right changing lanes, switch to the right lane".
I've seen many many people turn their head toward the passenger while talking which is much worse than hands free conversation.
Face the facts. Any conversation will distract you. So, outlaw talking and driving at the same time (put the microphone with transmitter alerting police of violation while moving). Remove audio and all other gadgets (because car audio was number one reason for creash as of 5 years ago). And then have a safe and boring trip. Well... then snoozing behind the weel will become number one reason.
Hyperom.com
We have this technology already. Its called HARM.
Have gnu, will travel.
Fuck this. I need to use my cell phone in the car when I'm buying (or selling) drugs. We should NOT give the cops another reason to pull people over when they're riding dirty.
"Talking on your cellphone while driving isn't a crime in most states, but it should be. Studies have shown that people who drive and talk are many times more likely to have an accident."
So we're protecting people from themselves? Aren't there already wreckless driving laws that kick in when you actually cause an accident? We should never pass laws which predict a particular outcome and make something illegal because it could potentially result in that outcome.
I mean, its not just cell phones which are a problem. Talking to a passenger while driving increases the likelihood of having an accident too. Do we cite people who talk to their passengers?
I could go on and on with similar things that negatively impact your driving ability, but I don't think its necessary to prove the point. What's legal should remain legal until it results in a real crime.
Y'men they invented hooking a field strength meter to a camera to take a pic of the vehicle (and license plate) whose signal just peaked/dopplered as it drove past the stationary meter&camera?
wow.
So, should they also be banned?
Blinking 12 o'clockers: Designers of electronics who arrogantly assume they should demand the users attention because their devices clock hasn't been set, despite the fact that the time of day may be utterly irrelevant to the operation of the device in question.
There's just no excuse for an engineer who designs a blinking 12:00. Include a receiver for one of the various radio-based time sources if your device needs the time badly enough to justify that. Otherwise, shut up, display something neutral, and wait for the user to set the time when they bloody well feel like it. (Which, if your device is a microwave in a kitchen with 3 other clock displays, well, let's not hold our breath OK?)
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Many (read most) aircraft don't have a flight computer. You're only thinking of airliners, which is like having a discussion about motor vehicles and deciding all motor vehicles are modern busses with some kind of cruise control.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Who the hell said anything about re-testing anyone? Just make it part of the standard test from now on and over time things will improve.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Read my blog: HansMast.com
Fellow /.'ers,
The fact of the matter is that there are people out there that SHOULDN'T BE DRIVING! Period, end of story... This is true whether they're old people or compulsive law breakers. Somehow, it doesn't seem to register with many that having a DL is a PRIVILEGE, *NOT* a right!
Mass transit sucks in your city? Tough shit! Lobby your local government for better transit options. When you've proven that you can't drive safely, you're endangering the safety of the public and don't deserve to have a license.
To not stray off-topic, there are people out there that CAN drive and talk on the phone without causing an accident. Granted, it may hinder your reaction time somewhat, but you can drive safely nonetheless.
The issue shouldn't only apply to cell phones, as there are devices that people use while driving that can cause them to become distracted (ie. CB's, pagers, etc.) Is Big Brother going to create detection devices for them too?? Give me a freakin' break!
In the end, it's about generating additional revenue through such legislation. Contrary to news reports, the economy is NOT doing all that well. Many cities and municipalities are starving for funding! That's why property taxes have shot through the roof in many areas.
Bottom line... If you do cause an accident due to the use of a cell-phone or any electronic device, you'll get the usual penalties the first time around. The second time, 60 to 90 day suspension of your license. Keep doin' it and kiss it goodbye for a year (and so on and so forth.) Get caught driving with a suspended license, you're carted off to jail.
Good luck to us all!
I can use the GPS software on my 3G mobile to download live traffic data and re-route me accordingly, hence my data connection can be very busy while driving.
can it tell the difference between that and say, a video call?
But then I realized the knuckle draggers would be even more dangerous when they realized they lost the call AND the signal.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
This would be a neat idea if they can implement it correctly. I would rather see them put this in place nationally and use it when an accident happens, instead of states banning cell use while driving. There really are many of us out there that can safely use one and continue to operate in a very safe manor. Banning cell use while drive inevitably leads to more revocations of our civil and constitutional rights and freedoms.
The idea would be good if placed correctly by making the person who can't talk and drive, pay the higher insurance costs, deductibles, consequential, and punitive damage costs for causing an accident while talking on the phone. Right now in Minnesota, there are many people who not only talk and drive, but are also simultaneously driving very very fast, and weaving in and around traffic in such dangerous ways, that a TA is almost bound to happen. Then there are the others who wind up dropping their speeds to around 40mph almost instantly when they receive a phone call on the freeways. These guys almost always cause so much frustration and annoyance to other legitimate drivers.
Ultimately, those that cannot afford the higher expenses because of these infractions will discontinue or alter their use of the cell phone while driving. Of course the flip side of this coin also is that there are plenty of people out there who have plenty of money and could wind up being 3 or 4 TA's caused by driving and chatting, and just absorbing the "costs" while denying someone else their life.
We live in a free country and as such, a law banning the use of a cell phone while driving is not appropriate, but instead make the perpetrator pay for it if they cause an incident. This company, if they have a workable product, could help us all to that end.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
The legislature simply change the law to criminalize the behaviour you can detect.
In the US, our we can't require people to prove that they are innocent.
But, we can change the definition of the crime so that the police not knowing you're innocent *is* the crime.
Open container laws: Operating a vehicle with an open container in it is a crime.
Operating a vehicle with a detectable cell phone in it will be a crime, too.
Actually drinking the booze, or talking on the phone is not the crime you're being charged with.
You're charged with looking like you were doing those things.
And if the fuzz says that's what it looked like to him, you're guilty.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
OK...I was swept up by the CB radio craze of the 70's and obtained my driver's license in 1978. The first thing I did was install a mobile CB in my first car. I talked on that CB quite a bit while driving and never had an accident. Then in the 80's, I obtained my amateur radio license (General Class). So what did I do: install a VHF/UHF rig in my car and talked on it all the time without incident. Eventually, I installed an HF rig in my vehicle, worked DX on 10 and 20 meters and even worked code, all while driving my car. No accidents. Now I've had a cell phone in my car since they were introduced (big ugly bag phone initially). Again, never an accident and never even that feeling of "whoa!" I better pay attention. Police, fire, EMS and even garbage trucks have two-way radios and/or cell phones. They seem to get along just fine, talking on a communications device and driving. Did someone wave a magic wand over their head and give them a special "anti-stupid" power that allows them to talk and drive at the same time?? I guess the rest of us are just not worthy. Enough is enough on this ridiculous notion. I think I'm going to install an old rotary phone in my car. Maybe if I can't wreck while talking, I can beat myself in the head with the reciever so big moron brother can say "look, he was using a phone and caused the crash".
...but the best part was
(wait for it)
he was in a squad car in uniform at the time.
Are we now in a state of anarchy?
I sure hope nobody on the phone in the car is using a pace maker, EMP to disable 'just the phone?' They can't be serious.
75,000+ miles while talking on a cell phone. Never been in an accident while talking on the cell phone. In fact, only one accident way back when I was 19. No tickets either.
I see little point in getting off the cell phone when I am still driving better while on the phone than 90% of the rest of the people on the road. And driving way better than 99% of the truckers who are allowed their CBs.
So unless we pass laws banning CBs while driving. I see little point in me stopping the use of my cell phone. In fact, it's probably prevented me from getting into a number of accidents while driving home real late while tired. Same reason we often have a friend along as a passenger for really long road trips.
- Jason
Why bother with that? Just wait, and eventually everyone too stupid to drive well will be dead. Problem solved!
(Sheesh.)
Reductio ad absurdum is just plain weak if you have to exaggerate an argument to that degree. You just end up arguing against yourself. I'm surprised you didn't say we should just shoot everyone when they make a driving mistake. Neither your argument or the one I've just suggested bears any resemblance to what I was suggesting.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Err, there's only four "distractions" listed, and the first two are the same thing. Typically the cigs are in a pocket, a purse, or the console of the vehicle. You know, accessible places where people store everything from sunglasses to Tic-Tacs. Why not have a hissy over those items?
"Extinguishing the stub" isn't distracting either. The ashtray is located under the radio, usually. That means that putting out a cig is just about as dangerous as changing the radio station.
As far as the "sh*t, I dropped hot ashes in my lap!" example is concerned, I've got nothing. Wait, scratch that. I've got one! coffee, bitch. A cold drink can be just as distracting if it soaks your genitals and starts to run down the seat towards the taint. Chilled taints are responsible for a lot of accidents.
Do you drink, eat candy, wear sunglasses, or listen to the radio while driving? That's like playing russian roulette with other people's lives, man!
Now, I respect the parent poster--I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
The danger inherent in driving comes from other road users. Any fool can drive do a ton down an empty motorway while talking on the phone. Far fewer people can talk on the phone while driving down a busy street and still maintain awareness of every potential hazard. There's also the minor issue that pilots make short, standardised calls which are related to the matter in hand; while drivers engage in rambling conversations concerning everything but collision avoidance.
VHF radios are used to make flying more safe and in an environment which involves controlled interaction with other aircraft. Cellphones provide no safety aspect for someone driving a car, most drivers aren't trained to drive while using a phone and interactions with other road users are chaotic. You cannot use aviation as a defence for driving whilst on the phone.
Pull The Fuck Over
Two Real Reasons - Push everyone into Mass Transit. Two - Tax those who still insist on the freedom to go where they please when they please rather than wait for the Mass Transit overlords to take them there.
Well, until the lit end accidentally falls in your lap.
"The company attaches a paint gun to mark the car, or even an EMP gun that can disable the offending cell phone."
Actually, detecting that the cell phone is moving is easy, the provider can do that now. Determining with sufficient reliability that it is the driver that is on the phone is not possible; and the liability of paintballing even one wrong vehicle, injuring a passenger or driver, etc... make this so incredibly not possible.
So your argument is that the reason that cars are more dangerous is that people are less well trained?
What exactly are we disagreeing on then? You seem to think having a ton of idiots on the road sans mobile phone is a lot safer than having a ton of idiots on the road with mobile phones. I argue educate them not to be idiots on the road and actually include some basic comms while driving before licensing them.
Then you argue that radios make flying safer but mobile phones don't. What about circumstances where users are warned of danger up ahead, traffic etc. You just wanna ignore that.
All of that doesn't matter though. The real problem I have with laws against mobile phone use isn't that I want to use one on the road. It's that it's difficult to police, and you end up with every idiot ignoring the law and using their phone anyway. Same with speeding. The number of idiots getting caught doing well in excess of the speed limit is incredible, but what's really bad is that every time I take a cab (quite often in my job) I've got a cabbie doing 20km/hr over the limit while swapping jobs and arranging pickups between a fleet of cabs on the mobile and on the radio. These guys drive all day for a living - if the laws were going to work, you'd think they'd work to slow these guys down. Worse yet, where I live I do stick to the speed limit. You should see the amount of goddamn abuse I get. Crap like this doesn't make us safer, it just makes everyone behave like an asshole. It makes our lives more stressful.
So what am I proposing? That there's no alternative to educating people. If they're unsafe idiots artificially trying to restrict them to doing the right thing isn't going to replace some common sense.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
They don't mention headsets. Here in California, it will be illegal to talk on your cell while driving starting next month, but we can still talk on bluetooth headsets, or on speakerphone, so this technology is already obsolete...