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
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 ----
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?
How about my handsfree system?
From what I've seen, it's mainly the fact that you are holding a taco on the side of your head that requires some effort to ensure it remains there and obscures your field of vision not only by blocking one side of your head but making it difficult to turn your head and see all areas around your car. I can't count how many times I've seen someone talking on their phone on the left side of their head, making a subtle motion that they are glancing in the lane to their left, then trying to change lanes on top of me since they didn't actually look.
Driving with a taco on the side of your head has been made unlawful in many states, but handsfree systems for the most part are ok. How is this new system going to distinguish between the two?
Instead of posting something stupid like "brace yourself for a flood of comments" (DUH), why not flood us with links to statistical studies proving your inferred point?
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
I'll start.
From the study:
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
But why single out talking on cell phones? Where is the system to detect an intense conversation with a passenger, changing the radio station, fumbling with the A/C controls in a rental car, a crying baby in the back seat.... We've accepted that driving is hazardous. Everybody on the road knows it. News flash, there are irresponsible or distracted drivers out there; look out! A driver should be able to safely speed away from someone that is doing something that is stupid. A driver should be able to call the police when they drive by someone who is in trouble. Driving will always by a highly variable and highly hazardous situation that one voluntarily puts themselves in. That little yellow line isn't going to stop someone from drifting over onto your side of the road. You have to pay attention constantly. It shouldn't matter what other people are doing; assume everyone is drunk, distracted, or whatever and adjust your driving accordingly. Stop worrying about them and make sure you are doing what is necessary to stay safe. You only have control of your own situation. A thousand laws won't give you control over someone else.
Why, because leaving the nature of charges up to the discretion of individual law enforcement officers has worked so well in the past?
Thanks, but no thanks. If I'm going to be charged with a crime for which my license could potentially be suspended, or for which I might well go to jail, I demand that the state be able to precisely determine the nature of my violation.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
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!
There was a radio breakfast show in Melbourne Australia talking to the legendary (and not very bright) Warwick Capper who they were interviewing by phone while he was in his car. Warwick says he has to put the phone down because there is a cop up ahead and does so... you then heard the high-pitch thick aussie accent shrill of a female saying "Warrick.... I'm the one driving".
Your studies are flawed. Talking to another person in the car, eating french fries, etc, is at least if not more distracting.
Hands free cell phone use is not as distracting. Just go out and try it sometime. I may sound anecdotal, but I'm right. It's like saying the sky is blue, obviously hands-free is safer than holding your arm up to your head and obstructing your vision.
I think the accident rate is more likely attributable to the fact that reckless people are more likely to use a cell phone when driving, not that cell phones are inherently more dangerous than other things done while driving.
And how many times does mythbusters need to be debunked? It's a TV show with an editorial decision made bout results. They are always very predictable.
I don't like cell phone use in the car, but this is a stupid system. How about we stop giving out tickets for speeding and use that manpower to patrol, unmarked, and videotape the really awful drivers out there. A 12 person jury could then sentence reckless drivers to a large fine and a year long driving suspension. You would see fewer road ragers and red light runners and general assholes, but people who are just being normal are fine to responsibly use the phone or speed. Assholes would be afraid to drive badly.
Too bad this doesn't give much power/money to bureaucrats.
I can't speak to eating french fries, but I do know why speaking to a passenger isn't as dangerous. The passenger is in the car with you can see things going on just as well as you can. So they're less likely to speak at inopportune times. They also tend to keep their own eyes on the road while speaking, so they can alert you if they see a danger that you don't.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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
'Just because some people aren't able to deal with distractions and prioritize driving doesn't mean that others can't do it perfectly safely.'
Just because you think you can deal with distractions doesn't mean you can. Just like driving after a couple of beers, everyone thinks they can. Even when they do in an accident they will probably blame something else.
'putting the phone down and ignoring the conversation when driving demands your attention'
You can't accurately assess whether driving demands your full attention unless you are giving it your full attention in the first place.
'Once you become skilled at driving, there are certainly some spare fractions of seconds that can be used for other tasks, as long as driving is the highest priority.'
For every driver who can ACTUALLY do this, there are hundreds who think they can. People are overconfident and frankly, most are stupid. I am all for personal freedom and preferences, right up to the point when we are talking about something that kills thousands of people every year.
Licensed, mature, responsible adults have already proven they can't drive safely. Just look at the current automotive death tolls. I guarantee that if you subtract the number due to natural conditions like ice, the number won't be appreciably smaller. Those deaths are caused by the elderly, shaving/putting on makeup on the way to work, blow drying hair on the way to work, eating while driving, talking to passengers while driving, cellphones, drinking, maybe a small fraction from prescription medications and other drugs. Although my experiences of youth are that the last either don't impair motor function as badly as drinking (read smoking pot) or impair it to the point where starting a vehicle isn't a possibility in the first place.
You can argue all day long that cellphone use is safe if done responsibly but when put to the test at 3 or 4 atypical people were astonished to find that driving drunk was safer. When I say atypical of course we are talking about the mythbusters team and frankly they are definitely brighter and more capable than your average adult. They are also easily old enough to qualify for the experienced and skilled driver mark.
The studies are not flawed, have been repeated with the same results so many times I've lost track, and refer to an actual cognitive impairment that has nothing to do with hands-free sets, eating french fries, or listening to the radio. We're social animals and our brains are wired to give social interaction priority.
The two couldn't be in conflict in the good old Paleolithic because if you were doing something where your life was at stake and that required total concentration everybody with you was in the same situation. You wouldn't be avoiding leopards while one guy yakked on about the good time he'd had last night. That's also why talking to a passenger in the car is different. If there's a red light coming up and you're not stopping for it, the passenger will either stop talking or say something about it (according to taste).
What the neurological scans show under simulated driving conditions with actual cell phone usage is that the areas of the brain being used are different when listening to the radio or talking to passengers. Decision-making and processing areas are devoted to the cell phone conversation first, the driving second. The closest analogy is being drunk, even though that feels very different. The effect of not having your brain in gear for the task at hand is similar though.
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!
Sneezing while driving is illegal?
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.
The problem I have with this is that it compares to .08 blood alcohol. The legal limit is .08 because an organization which gained respect for its early efforts to get communities to enforce drunk driving laws at all (MADD...I remember when police officers would often tell drunk drivers to be careful and let them go on their way) decided that was the most stringent level that the public would support. MADD's goal is to make .02 blood alcohol the legal drunk driving limit (I'm sorry I no longer have the link to the interview where the head of MADD said this). I am not convinced that there is any good reason for lowering the legal limit to .08 BAC, so comparing talking on a cellphone to .08 BAC doesn't convince me of anything. More importantly there are studies showing that adjusting the radio/cd player is far more distracting than talking on the cell phone.
As has been stated, if we think that cellphones in cars are a problem that needs a new law, then lets just increase the penalties for various moving violations greater if you were on the cell phone at the time.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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!
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
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.
There's likely some truth to the claim that the passenger is also aware of the situation around you while the person on the other end of the phone isn't. However, most studies which claim ridiculous increases in the chances of an accident are severely flawed. Among other things, they usually compare someone talking on a phone to someone concentrating exclusively on driving. The problem is that people generally don't concentrate exclusively on driving, even if they're not using a cell phone. Doing most tasks while driving distracts you and increases your chance of having an accident. But using a cell phone isn't any worse than many other things people routinely do. Using an iPod is worse. (Link is to a PDF.) Eating is just as bad but you don't see people screaming to make drive up windows at fast food restaurants illegal. If there was any truth to the claim that "...Statistics show that driving while talking on the cell phone increases the chance of an accident by 400 %..." (Quote taken from the article, for those who didn't read it) then there would have been a significant increase in the rate of traffic accidents as cell phone use became more common. No such increase is to be found. Accidents are flat or decreasing per mile traveled in recent years.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Which is why you say either "hey, I'll call you back, I'm in traffic" or "hey, shut up for a minute, weirdness is afoot".
If I'm in a Heavy traffic area, i don't talk on the phone, I need all my attention on the road.
But if I'm driving back home 6 miles from getting groceries, where I will see maybe 4 cars, total, after i get out of the city limits?
The problem is, like everything else, the State wants to be my Mommy. I have a mother, i don't need OR want another one. I'm a adult, I've been driving for almost 30 years in all sorts of environments, I haven't had a accident for over 20 years, and that one wasn't my fault.
If you are going to let me vote & drive in the first place, don't you sort of kind of think I can be trusted to NOT do something suicidally stupid?
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
The person on the other end of the phone just keeps babbling away, unaware that a semi is not totally in his lane and I have to decide whether to pass or ease off the gas.
You need silence for that? Shit. I must be Michael Schumacher or something.
Get your own free personal location tracker
the difference between a driver talking on a hands-free cell phone and the same driver having a conversation with a passenger.
r sations.html
The difference is mainly involved in visualization of the person you are talking to. You aren't just listening to words, you are imagining the person, their expressions, their gestures, etc. Found an interesting study here: http://spotlight.siu.edu/03082006/Hands-freeconve
We are all just people.
I'm certainly sure that I'm so bad driving while on the phone, that I normally have to slow down, and use the handsfree. However, what i've seen is that it mainly depends on the topic. If you're talking stuff that keeps to from paying attention to the road, certainly you'll make mistakes. If you're taking just silly stuff or saying hi to a friend (some brainless conversation), doesn't take much of your concentration off.
What I think is worst is, that some countries (and probably next in the US), the text message system popularity has grown so much, that some people believe they are skilled enough to type messages while driving. Some of them, because it's cheaper send messages (in other countries), some others, because they "don't want to get caught" by the cops.
Stupidity is really amazing!
Smoking?
I quit smoking a while back, but I'm pretty sure that outside of the lighting process, absolutely no brain activity is required whatsover to smoke.
Which might be why so many people do it, come to think of it.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Thought!
With GPS finding it's way into phones these days, how difficult would it be to code the phone to disallow
any incoming / outgoing transmissions once the phone is travelling X miles per hour ? ( say 30 mph )
Could be coded to allow emergency dialing only ( ergo 911 ). . . .
Tough part would be what the phone would do if no GPS signal were available I suppose.
( LOL you thought reception of cellular signals were bad )
If you outlaw blow jobs, then only outlaws will get blow jobs.