Slashdot Mirror
Software Holds Cell Phone Calls While Driving
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian company Aegis Mobility has developed software that detects if a cell phone is moving at 'car' speeds. If so, the software, DriveAssistT, will alert the cellular network, telling it to hold calls and text messages until the drive is over. Calls are not blocked entirely; callers will be notified that the person appears to be driving, but they can still leave an emergency voice mail, which will be sent through immediately."
Car passengers don't get to make phone calls either?
But more importantly, what is Iron Man going to do to call off missiles being shot at him now?
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Funny you should smell a patent: MS actually has a very similar one(though, shockingly enough, MS's variant has a lot more centralized command and control, and a lot less local decisionmaking by devices, go figure). US Patent Application 20080125102
This brings to mind the "feature" in most navigation systems where most functionality is disabled while driving. Terrible idea, as it winds up being more distracting trying to work around it.
Case in point, the Nissan/Infiniti navi/entertainment stuff in my sister-in-law's car. It disables certain "more complex" functions when moving. One of the disabled features is browsing for a song to play from a CF card. Result: you spend more time playing with the thing trying to find the song you were looking for, which means the "safety feature" has in fact created an additional distraction.
The time I had to pull off the freeway in a "not-so-nice" area to reprogram my navigation system (had accidentally selected avoid freeways without realizing it) is another simple example of the dangers of such nannyware. Had to do this because the Nav thought it would be too dangerous for me to push "Dest", and then "Previous Destination", and then toggle the "Freeway" checkbox.
The next day a $2.50 Radio Shack switch was installed to disable the vehicle speed sensor feed wire. :D More modern navs can't be worked around in this fashion, but you can often scour torrent sites for "patches" to navigation DVDs to work around the speed-disable "feature". Some companies even make a living at it by building add on modules to the system itself, e.g. http://www.coastaletech.com/gmx320.htm. It's a requirement for any vehicle I purchase from here on out that any such "nanny features" be capable of being disabled.
No one wants this. I wouldn't touch a phone with it. Good luck with that.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Seems like exactly the same as turning the phone off. I smell a patent!
It is different because you do not need to pay a monthly fee to turn the phone off.
From TFA:
The company hopes to be able to announce early next year that the software is available through a carrier, probably for $10 to $20 per month for a family.
Nobody would ever switch to passenger mode "just this one time because it is important" while driving either.
"Mostly harmless."
Actually NYC is screwed up compared to many U.S. cities. Since they built the very first subways in the US, and a lot of other cities learned from their mistakes. Washington DC for example, has really good public transit, and the parts I've seen of Atlanta, while a pretty limited sample around the airport and convention centers and hotels, look very good too. New York isn't nearly as bad as most US tourists think, but having the terminals underground to give a smaller surface footprint makes it harder for the police to keep problems out - there's places that have solidly licked that particular problem just by putting the turnstyle level above ground with plenty of glass around it, and others that feel they can afford enough beat cops to really watch the entrances.
Who is John Cabal?
Their have been TV shows where people tested cell phone subjects, i.e. driving in a parking with cones laid out, or at a track, and pretty frequently, people using cell phones have reaction times similar to people who are legally drunk, and make similar numbers and types of mistakes. I've even seen examples where the reporter or host has told a driver, "What you've just done compares to a person who's driving with a BAQ of about 0.18 or 0.22." So don't be too sure drunk driving is a much bigger problem. It might just be that the drunk is drunk the whole journey, and the cell phone user is only an increased risk while they are actually on the phone, and most calls don't last the whole trip.
Who is John Cabal?
For one, it answers the call. Instead of somebody calling and thinking that you may just be out of coverage or you forgot to turn your ringer back on, they get told what the situation really is.
What you've just described is an away message for your voice mail.
While they're at it, v2 should let me tell people when I'm eating dinner.
And when I'm watching a movie.
And when I'm asleep.
[/sarcasm]
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You left out one other feature
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. said it plans to offer a discount of 3 percent to 10 percent on family policies for people who use DriveAssistT.
I imagine you've been on /. long enough to see the implications of that.
The insurance company 'discount' will quickly become a premium for everyone else.
Especially if the service is only available from one cellular company.
Personally, I don't see that happening soon,
since the software is limited to relatively expensive GPS enabled WinMo & Symbian phones.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
i agree that it's stupid to charge for this feature (really stupid), but the point of this is to provide a convenience to the subscriber, not to restrict their actions. this isn't like one of those court-ordered car breathalyzers that are meant to safeguard against poor judgment or deter stupid behavior.
chances are, if someone has this service enabled on their phone, they intend on using it. if they choose to ignore it, that's their business. it doesn't detract from the inherent usefulness of this service for those who don't want to be distracted while their car is moving.
frankly, i think legally requiring cellphone carriers to offer this type of service would be much more productive than the current state law in California requiring people to use hands-free headsets while driving--which is proven to be just as distracting as holding a phone to your ear. it's the act of engaging in a phone conversation while driving that causes accidents, not the fact that you're holding a phone with one hand. but i bet makers of hands-free headset are real happy about the government endorsement of their product.
You've left off: Some people can actually drive and talk on a phone at the same time, and/or have enough sense to know when the concentration required for one exceeds their ability to focus on both at the same time. :)
But I haven't scrolled down and now don't have to.
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
It's different because you don't need to remember to turn it back on.
When I turn my phone off, I also don't have to remember to pay the $10 to $20 per month fee for this "service" either.
...to sit in traffic because some bozo stopped at a green light so they can finish their text message because their phone wont work once they start moving.
I would rather people who actually need this just go ahead and wreck their car. It would be the fastest way for them to learn how to drive and not use a damn phone for their 20 minute commute. More importantly, it would keep them off the road for a couple hours until they get a rental. Probably cheaper in the long run over paying for this service.
Why do you assume that if a minor child is in a car that is in motion, that the child is driving the car?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
In this case, talking on the phone is exactly as dangerous as talking to the person next to you in the car.
Which is often pretty damn dangerous.
Conclusion: yes, we can.
How does that follow? You shouldn't be talking to the person next to you if it endangers your driving.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Agreed - I often say 'Quiet!' to my partner (Ms Motormouth) when approaching situations that require concentration.
She used to get offended, until I explained that concentrating on the road was more important than the latest news on her friend's bunions or whatever.
I do have selective hearing, but prefer not to have to divert concentration to employ it :)
And my phone has a 'Silent' mode (as do most if not all) which I always turn on while driving.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
The issue isn't that people use cell phones on the road. The issue is that they're using a cell phone while on a section of road that needs their full attention. I can think of plenty of times when talking on my cell phone while driving isn't remotely dangerous. For instance, I might be driving on a stretch of interstate for 50 miles or so where I am not going through any major towns, and am not changing highways etc. In such an instance, talking on the cell phone is not such a distraction that you can't drive. In fact, it often helps keep you awake, as you really don't have much to do when cruise control is on and there's no one around.
Where it is dangerous is when you're driving around a city, or on crowded highways where you will likely have to be changing lanes and getting off at exits. In fact, I've been on the phone many times coming back from a concert or somewhere else that is a sizable distance away, where I tell whoever I'm talking to that I'll call them back in a bit, as I'm nearing home, and need to pay attention to the road again. It's just too difficult to try and pay attention to someone when you need to be watching everything around you. When you're talking to someone in the car, it can be as distracting as well, but normally, as they're aware of their surroundings, they know when not to talk, and what you can and can't talk about. Of course, having your hands free also helps, as holding a phone is one more thing to distract you.
I think laws outlawing all talking on the phone while driving are just too extreme. There are situations where it is appropriate, and situations where it isn't. Maybe it should just be enforced like seat belt laws (normally) are enforced. You won't be pulled over for talking on one, but if you are pulled over for something else (even if it was something minor that you normally wouldn't get a ticket for, but just a warning), and are talking on a cell phone, an additional fine will be added. I think this is fair, although it will likely be abused by law enforcement (although not as bad as the other way would be). An outright ban on cell phones just pisses people off who are legitimately safe when using their phones, and causes people who are on their phones to pay even less attention to the road, as they're now talking on the phone while looking out for cops, taking even more of their concentration.
Phil