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."
Seems like exactly the same as turning the phone off. I smell a patent!
Per subject..
... and let the machine get it.
Nobody rides a train at car speeds, am I right?
The "I'm in the back of an unmarked white van" patch has already been released.
So when I'm on the train, subway, in the back of a taxi or in the passenger seat in a car I can't talk on the phone either? I believe I'd be going the same "car" speeds in all those situations. I don't think they thought this through at all. It would just piss me off more than anything.
No, wrong, voice mail is more of a distraction than receiving text messages. Just don't enable the ability to respond to the text message until the car comes to a stop.
But what about passengers?
What about the train commuters out there?
Should go over well with friends and family.
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
Ummm what if you are a passenger in the car? That would royally suck if you couldn't answer calls or text while being a PASSENGER in the car!
From the video: "Press 3 to request subscriber location information."
Great. So, not only is it blocking all communication while moving sufficiently fast, it's also reporting your location back to anyone who calls.
It seems to be presented as something you'd put on a teen's phone. Great for the parents, I'm sure. The teens are going to hate it.
And for what it's worth, it's not incredibly difficult to talk on the phone while driving -- or to ignore it. I'm sure drunk driving is a much bigger problem.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Won't someone please think of the passengers?
From here
but don't let that get into your 2 minutes of hate.
You see, the purpose behind this is two-fold.
First you have the publicly announced intent. This however, is more of a ruse that anything else however.
Secondly, and the primary purpose, is so that caller doesn't hear the mile long string of obscenities and ear shattering crunch when you give your best fast ball and throw your phone at the wall.
It all makes sense now...
Microsoft - The best ad campaign Apple ever had.
While I'm at it, they have a feedback form -- it requires subscribing to their spam^Wnewsletter, but it's possible they actually don't know how much this idea sucks.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Trains? Taxis? Just turn the damn thing off.
meh
Good thing there's a passenger mode and you can basically opt out. I have hands free in the car and I find it useful to take the occasional call, so I wouldn't use this in a car.
Motorbikes are different. I'd definitely use something like this eliminate the distraction of the phone ringing or buzzing when riding.
I don't therefore I'm not.
I bet greyhound and Amtrack will not approve either.
.... everything looks like a nail.
I predict a sudden rise in "emergencies"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes, the Nanny-State types will really love this. Until the elite members of the Nanny State Directors Brigade are trying to run somone else's life from the back seat of their hybrid limo on the way to a fundraiser where they'll be asking Motorola for more campaign cash.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is not meant to be mandatory, ok. So quit crying about what happens when you're a passenger in a car, or on a train, bus etc. What happens is you turn the feature off.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
do we need? What next they going to gag and bag my kids so they don't distract me? Here's an idea, ticket distracted drivers.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
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)
I take the bus to work in colorado about half the time, it's really quite a reasonable and frequent service given how far out of town i am.
My parents live a similar distance from edinburgh and I can assure you that their public transit is significantly poorer.
I think it gets skewed because most US impressions of europe are of big cities like London and Paris that have exceptional public transport (probably not too unlike NYC either)
pull the sim card and then call 911 as that puts alot of phones in to a basic mode.
How does it know that a car is moving at car speed? If it was hardware, I would think it has some kind of sensors for acceleration and works out the speed from that, but the summary says it's software.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
"override the motion-sensing feature to indicate that they're riding in car rather than driving".
And I'm sure you can initiate calls regardless.
Yes, the vast majority think they are above average drivers. They think _they_ are special. They can handle it, it won't distract them. It's pretty much the same arguments drunk drivers use.
Of course many laws trying to fix the cell phone and drive problem are delusional too. They allow hands free phones, as if multiple studies haven't found that it's about as bad as a hand held phone while driving.
that must be one MOTHERFUCKING loud and obnoxious ring tone to hear it over the wind and bike flying down the highway :P
Perfect for lunch or movies :)
It will work well for most people, but they don't keep a handset which doesn't work while they drive.
It will prevent a lot of accidents. People just won't want to use it. Good intentions, good tech, bad to force it on people.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Of course they have. You can TURN IT OFF if you're a passenger.
RTFA FFS.
The purpose is to give the driver the choice. It achieves that purpose. TFA mentions if you override it is logged, so parents/employers can nag you about it.
The only issue I have with the idea is that it costs $10 a month. Seems excessive. If it catches on I expect it would be a virtually free feature in later models.
You haven't seen his motor bike!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I hear that a freeway describes exactly what you are talking about,
The troll with karma.
What if you're a passenger in a car? Even if they could pinpoint the location with GPS's limitation, how do they know you're the driver?
In addition, every state, and every country has a different speed limit (even different counties). For example, the speed limit in the stretches around the Puget Sound range from 55 to 65 MPH. Other states in the US have speed limits up to 70, and some of which where the highways have little towns and even less local traffic (such as N. Dakota) have little to no speed limit at all.
So hypothetically speaking, anyone using said technology without an up to date map of regions allowing for said speed limits could not only be capable of false negatives, but could be used for damning (albeit erroneous) testimony, applied in regions where a similar case would be applied, such as a jury that doesn't *know* you could drive legally at 70 MPH in any given region.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
The driver ALREADY HAS a choice. Just because your phone rings doesn't in any way obligate you to pick it up. Many of my friends don't answer their phones while driving. They just call me back when they get a chance.
I'm with the OP on this one. If you can turn it off as a passenger, what's to stop me from turning it off AS THE DRIVER also?
Is it that hard NOT to take a call while driving?
evidently, YES.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Any time a driver is in a collision, their phone records should be searchable by their insurance corp for whether they were in a voice, text or other mobile phone session. If they were, and there's no evidence that the phone was operated by someone else (a passenger, left with someone at home, etc), they should be entitled to zero liability protection from their insurance. And their risk rating should get a lot worse.
Some people can drive while phoning. Everyone who tries it should be absolutely sure that they can handle it, or pay the consequences.
But preemptively interfering with people's phones without precisely excluding only those who are pressing it to their faces or otherwise taking an unmanageable risk is going way too far without adequate benefit.
And I say that as a motorcyclist who will harangue drivers I see pressing phones to their faces in traffic, and follow them home screaming blood at them if they don't hang up when I make the "hang it up" motion at them.
--
make install -not war
You, and half the rest here.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
How about your desire to not be distracted by phone calls while driving?
Strikes me as odd you see that as a problem - if you've not got the discipline to enable the thing when you're driving, why pay for it at all?
Ever sat at a stop light watching traffic?
It's not the passengers making the calls.
As long as you get what you want who cares what other people want.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Nearly every time I see someone driving outlandishly stupid on the road, they're using a cell phone. However, there are more stupid things that you can do while driving that are more distracting than a cell phone: changing the radio, eating, drinking, looking for something, reading directions. None of these things are illegal, merely discouraged.
Outlawing cell phone use while driving is futile; there are always ways to get around it, e.g., hands-free links. If there is no way to enforce a law, it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I think if we stopped trying to ban it and merely strongly recommended not using cell phones while driving, we would see an effective drop in the number of people using cell phones while driving. Seat belts, for instance, weren't enforced until this past decade (at least in my state). However, advertising, education, and signs asking you to buckle up made it so the vast majority did buckle up. Was it illegal to drive without a seat belt on? No. Was it safe? Yes, so most people did it. Why can't we approach the cellphone problem like we approached the seat belt problem? Why are we so gungho about laws and declaring everything unsatisfactory illegal nowadays?
Isn't the plan to make this technology mandatory? Then it has to work even if you don't desire it.
What about Clown cars??? For example:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/msi/lowres/msin139l.jpg
http://www.break.com/pictures/bark-banger-clown-car514174.html
http://www.skooogle.com/content/binary/motivation_clown_car.jpg
That's a bit of an uninformed conclusion. Just because you can imagine a bunch of cases where such a feature is not a good idea, doesn't mean that there aren't cases where it would solve a lot of problems. If your job involved lots of short drives between destinations then it could be really useful. As soon as you start moving your phone won't interrupt you, as soon as you stop it lets you know about the calls you missed, and in the meantime it let the people trying to contact you know what's going on.
If you took your blinkers off you might realize that this is a feature that will be useful for some people, who will purchase it, and not so much for others, who won't purchase it. It's not a hard thing to get your hear around if you try. Nobodies going to purchase it and then try and figure out a way of defeating it.
If Slashdot was a crowded room, and someone were to come into the room and ask "Who owns the red car parked out the front", the answer "oh yeah, that's mine" would be lost amongst the noise of everyone else replying "It's not mine. I can't imagine why you'd think it was mine. How dare you suggest that I left a red car parked out the front".
I don't hear mine when I'm riding, but I do feel the vibrate.
Kidnapped and in the trunk of a car...oops.
...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.
This is slashdot. You don't have a girlfriend.
Perhaps because it is not a feature to control the user (yet) but to HELP the user. That's also why it costs money, rather than being mandated by law.
This seems like a feature that they're planning on selling to parents. Otherwise, if you can't remember to turn off your phone before getting in a car, what are the chances that you'll remember to turn off the cell lock when getting on a train, bus, or plane? This sounds exactly like the kind of Won't-Somebody-Please-Think-of-the-children that will lead to some expensive new gadget that simply annoys teenagers. It also, of course, gives them an all-new reason why they're not answering you when you call.
If you're an adult and you actually need this... LEARN TO IGNORE YOUR CALLS. Trust me, it's possible. People in Los Angeles have been masters of this for 40 years.
I really wish they'd create something that would turn Cellphones back on at the end of movies. I can't tell you how often I've gone for a day or two without being reachable simply because I was trying to scrub the memory of The Santa Clause 3 out of my brain.
The ______ Agenda
...drive at airplane speeds if I want to use my cell phone.
Nothing. What's to stop you unbuckling your seat belt?
It's not meant to prevent you using your phone. It's meant to stop your phone from distracting you when you CHOOSE TO ACTIVATE THIS FUNCTION.
So? If you don't need it, don't buy it. Some people can wake up at 7 am. Others need an alarm clock. (Sorry, can't think of a car analogy off the top of my head.)
Not being able to talk when I'm sitting in bus, train, or my friend's car.. really sane ;)
I kinda like my headlights that turn on at night for me.
Did you just link to a site where the first paragraph refutes your statement? It says right there - "... claims that it is more dangerous than drink-driving are wrong and will not help to educate motorists about the dangers of inattentive driving." Besides, the issue is with trying to manipulate the controls of any device other than the car. Hands-free phones mean you're only as distracted as if you were talking to someone.
Are you going to suggest banning drivers from talking to their passengers?
Indeed, it's good that they don't: as a driver, I would find someone blabbering on the phone in the car while I'm driving quite distractive!
I know you're just joking, but some people might actually take it seriously (or come to the idea on their own). For those, please consider how many fatal car accidents happen because the driver was talking on a cell phone, and compare that with a number of people killed by deaf serial killers...
I can't tell you how often I've gone for a day or two without being reachable simply because I was trying to scrub the memory of The Santa Clause 3 out of my brain.
Seems like one viewing would be enough...
... please hold while I ignore it. Your call is important to me ...
actually I think seatbelts were required by law in most places. Maybe not your state, but you may have benefited from everyone else having the laws. But I agree with you there is no way to ban all stupid driving. EG: it is often decried that 1/3 of car crashes are caused by drunks. This ignores the even more starteling fact that 2/3 of crashes are from driving SOBER! Mothers Against Drunk Driving aren't very serious: we need Muthas Against Driving (ride a bike!)
Stupidity is its own reward.
In a few days I'll be among a group of 6 people driving over 1000km for a trip. We'll be in two cars. So when we want to plan our next stop, we'll call one of the people in the other car. We have a 66% chance of calling the not-driver-at-the-time. If we do happen to call the driver, we will pass the phone on to someone who is not driving.
So this technology would cut us off. Brilliant!
Is it an optional feature? Then it's fairly useless. Anyone who's driving and wants to make calls will simply turn it off.
Or are they going to make it mandatory? Great, then the passengers in a car, bus or train can't make calls.
> Of course they have. You can TURN IT OFF if you're a passenger.
Which is extremely nice and convenient to do all the time.
software that detects if a cell phone is moving at 'car' speeds
What happens if you're on a train? Or if you have a very fast car?
Wrong approach, sorry no points.
This is trying to solve a human problem with technology. The problem is opt-out. You must have opt-out, otherwise it would be just a very dumb idea, given that people ride as passengers, or drive on busses and trains as well. However, once you have opt-out, the exact kind of people who need this the most are the ones who will use it aggressively.
Most people are fairly reasonable. They don't take calls while driving anyways. The fucking idiots who drive with one hand on the phone and the other around a cup of coffee are the ones who'll use opt-out by default.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I have hands free in the car and I find it useful to take the occasional call, so I wouldn't use this in a car.
You are, of course, aware that the main problem of doing phone calls while driving isn't that you have one less hand, but that you are distracted, right?
Old busses used to have a sign that said "don't speak to the driver while he's driving" or some such notice. That had the same reason.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
Yes, the vast majority think they are above average drivers.
Exaggerating slightly, everybody think they're above average at everything. An interesting paper is "Unskilled and unaware of it" (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf), about how one's incompetence prevents one from recognizing it, and you tend to overestimate your level of competence. What I find interesting is that at the top end, people tend to underestimate their (comparative) level of competence.
This is mostly true for skills that are purely mental; when there's a motor component, your incompetence leaks when you, say, drive into the wall despite knowing you shouldn't.
If you're a passenger "all the time", you wouldn't buy it.
That would be easy. Phone shave a built-in clock. Just have an option to set it to "QUIET MODE" for a set time - say three hours - before it reverts to normal mode - unless you manually switch it back on first...
Hmmm... should I have patented that?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
As soon as you start moving your phone won't interrupt you, as soon as you stop it lets you know about the calls you missed, and in the meantime it let the people trying to contact you know what's going on.
Or, I could just put it in silent/vibrate mode, which I can't hear over the car, and it will still list all the calls I missed the next time I look at it.
Really, people... Serious case of a solution in need of a problem. If you don't want to take calls for some reason - Don't!. Simple as that. You don't need magic speed-sensing software to let you ignore your phone.
Natural selection via Capitalism....
Now we are attempting to regulate the service because more inept users have access to the convenience.
I find the trend to regulate the intelligent because of the inept alarming. Let the pseudo science begin.
I really wish they'd create something that would turn Cellphones back on at the end of movies.
Sounds like you need to buy an Android phone and put Locale on it. As a bonus, it will turn the phone's ringer off for you when you get there!
I could be moving at "car" speeds when riding in a taxi, or being a passenger in a friends car, or riding a bus or train...
What i do think would be useful tho, is for the "profiles" system on most phones be able to be tied to a system of recorded messages, the "i am currently driving and cannot answer the phone" is just one of them, how about "i am currently in a meeting, i will be out at 4pm" or "i am on a flight to new york and won't have access to my phone for at least 6 hours".
Far more useful than the default voicemail message most people get...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Seems that the service that you would ultimately PAY for has a lot of features. Here's a free alternative. Don't answer your phone while driving. Yeah, it REALLY is that simple, and the studies have already shown that you'll probably end up saving a life or two, including your own. When staring at the bloodied white sheet covering the life you just took, along with the civil lawsuit, ask yourself one question. Was the call REALLY worth it?
This may not come down to laws just yet, but you'll likely find insurance companies charging you a premium or not picking up the tab at all from your next fender bender if they find you were screwing around texting or talking when the accident happened. Again, when you're staring at $2000 worth of "minor" repair work on your fender that YOU have to now pay for, plus the other $2000 fender you hit, ask yourself again was the call REALLY worth it?
When you cross the 49th parallel it stops detecting alcohol or handguns in the trunk.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
They just need to tune it to motorbike speed, instead of car speed ;-)
Remember to do that every time you get in the car do you? Good for you if you do, but I tend to forget.
I guess it is not of much use in Bangalore where I live, since here car traffic is often at 5-10 kmph during peak hours. The software may decide that the mobile is not moving at "car speeds" ! :)
I think if any Indian telco adopts this software, they will have to put the minimum "car speed" setting from 1 kmph...
If you don't succeed at first, try again. If you still don't succeed, try harder. If nothing works, try reality shows.
In a moving car != driving
So I'm traveeling by train or a passenger in a car and this system will disable my 'phone?
Does make you wonder if there's any intellect behind some of this intellectual property.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Biker friend of mine had auto-answer on for a while on his in-helmet mike and speaker. I remember another friend complaining that he called him, it auto-picked up, and all friend 2 could hear was friend 1 going "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"! Friend 1 didn't even realise friend 2 was on the phone.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Yes, talking on the phone distracts from the road, but that won't change the fact people do it. All the law does is add another distraction into the mix. Now, when talking on the phone and driving, people are also looking out for cops. Looking out for cops is one more distractions from driving.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
why? On a motorbike I can answer and talk while riding at 80mph safely. It's called buying a correct hands free device. I even answer without touching it (voice activation) and the caller never knows I'm on a bike from the noise canceling.
Mine works great, but I leave it off the helmet and the phone in my pocket when I ride. I have no interest in letting someone spoil my ride by talking to them.
Many motorcyclists though are as stupid as the car drivers. I have seen a idiot on a crotch rocket in moving traffic with his helmet slid up and talking on a phone held to his face.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Remember to do that every time you get in the car do you
Why not just leave it in vibrate mode (at least during the day)? In the office (or any quiet environment), or in my pocket, a vibrating phone works just as well as the ungodly loud klaxon most people set as their ringtones.
Or, as a convenient alternative, I could write a bit of software that can automatically detect some instances in which I wouldn't want to be disturbed, and it can switch the phone to silent or vibrate on its own. Seems convenient.
Or, for less effort, I could buy the same software that someone else wrote...
Passengers.
....This isn't really an emergency, but can you stop and get a gallon of milk on the way home? I knew you'd answer the emergency call through... kthxbye
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
...turn it on for the morons driving around me while talking or texting on their phones.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
http://www.aegismobility.com/index.php/How-DriveAssist-Works.html "911 always allowed"
why? On a motorbike I can answer and talk while riding at 80mph safely. It's called buying a correct hands free device. I even answer without touching it (voice activation) and the caller never knows I'm on a bike from the noise canceling.
Two serious questions:
What kind of bike?
What brand and model of headset?
I've yet to find the headset that could overpower my V-star 1100.
I don't think they thought this through at all.
Yeah, I mean, how is software supposed to hold a cell phone. You would think that would be something only hardware can do.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
In Canada they are going to outlaw passengers in cars.
It is a great way to cut down on the number of people injured during a traffic accident! No more 2 car accidents with 3+ injured parties!!!
Maybe they should outlaw drivers, since that's the common factor.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Scala Rider cardo headset. works awesome in my composite helmet.
Yamaha RSV 1300. but my brother in law uses it as well on his BossHoss BHC-3 ZZ4 SS that he removed the mufflers and added straight pipes to. and that's louder than any bike I have ever seen at Sturgis.
If your helmet doesnt seal your ears well, no headset will work. so the beanie helmets are useless with bluetooth.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Most people (the ones I know, granted) are both driving and not driving on a regular basis.
My point was that, imo, this does not offer a benefit to anyone unless you take the insurance rebate into account.
WTF. This is the silent rise ot the machines in their war against humans! I say let natural selection and lawsuits regulate it. If not, what will come next? Your TV will work for just 2 hours a day cause your eyes might strain? And then you won't be allowed to go out of your car if it's hailing because you might get hurt?
And where's John Connor when you need him?
The choice is to have your call dealt with differently while driving than at other times. This is not a method for stopping people from talking while driving. This is a method for drivers who don't answer calls while driving to alert callers that they are on the road, and to pass through emergency calls even when they are.
In my Oldsmobile, you can only temporarily disable them by starting the car with the parking brake on (or something along those lines), and as soon as you release it the lights come on.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
i'm a verizon vict^H^H^H^Hcustomer;-}
So I guess they never considered that someone who is riding in the car and not driving may need to use the phone?
I am assuming from something I read in TFA I guess you can override it - but if you can override it then what is the point of it?
Seems like one of those things that some people would think is really great in theory, but in practice wouldn't be used (like UAC).
Can someone please write a WinMo app that uses GPS to do this?
...fucking mouth breathers are going to complain about this "infringement" on their so-called freedom to not concentrate on driving? Humans don't multitask well no matter what you believe. I know, I'm a great multitasker myself. But then again, I'm no longer human.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I posted on Slashdot a couple years ago about detecting the doppler shift of the radio frequencies emitted by a cell phone to determine if it is motion and disabling it accordingly, and that it was only a matter of time before such a system become mandatory for all cell phones.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Good thing there's a passenger mode and you can basically opt out.
Why would you pay for a service option, and then opt-out?
Can I have your $10/month instead? I won't call, and you won't need the service.
outlaw cars! Problems solved.
I am all for prosecution of anyone who tries to multitask in ANY way while at the wheel.
If you stop to think
you shouldn't drive.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
We're sorry. Your call could not be completed. The other party is currently traveling at... eighty-eight... miles per hour. If you would like to leav-- [call dropped]
[redial]
We're sorry. The number you have dialed is not currently active on the network. Please try your call again later. Thank you.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
This discriminates against those of us with super powers, who run at highway speeds.
What about the passenger in the side and back seats that were trying to carry on a conversation.
Instead of cutting service to the phone, how about having it contact OnStar to disable the vehicle and then narc on you to the police complete with your current location. (It's unlikely the culprit will simply abandon their car over a cellular incident with the police...)
8==8 Bones 8==8
IANAL. That having been stated, There is a clause in the constitution that states that powers not granted to the federal government are kept by either the states or by individuals. On the other hand the supreme court states that the right to free speech does not mean you can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. There is a public safety element to this and this does complicate the issue.
"I've seen some studies that suggested that "disembodied" talking (where the other person isn't right there) is somewhat worse. "
It makes sense that "disembodied" talking is more distracting. It you are talking to someone in the car, they can see what is happening around you. In some cases, they will tell you to pay attention to your driving. It's in their self interest because they too can be killed if you get into an accident. If the kids in the back seat are causing a ruckus and you are yelling at them to be quiet, that can be considered to be "disembodied" talking. Why is it that drivers will pull of the road in that case but not to use a cell phone.
This is right up there with GPS controls that can not be operated while the car is moving. In the name of "safety" (read: liability) we have to assume that every driver is alone in the vehicle and doesn't have a brain in his or her head.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You're making an assumption that is not backed up by reality. While it is true that some passengers may be marginally aware of what is going on in the car and on the road, and modulate the conversation with the driver, there are a great many people who will instantly switch gears into co-pilot mode and being spouting off driving directions should anything untoward happen on the road and thus further exasperate the situation and make it even worse.
You can see the same behavior in Congress. The Republicans will come up with a bad idea (billions to bail out Wall St), and the Democrats will take that idea and make it even worse (stuff billions in pork into the bill).
So in the end, having a conversation in a car either in person or over the phone or over a CB can be dangerous. But then, it's no more dangerous than giving a license to drive to people who really aren't properly trained. Of course if people drove reasonably and didn't ride up my ass, they have time to react.
All these great new think-of-the-children devices will increase the IQ of the children as they learn great new 133t hacker skills to defeat all the devices so they can use them how they like and lure the parents into deeper levels of false confidence than any parent-child relationship since Medieval times and those wonderfully secure devices known as "chastity belts" - which more resemble torture devices than belts.
So, this is something we need because we are all so lacking in self control that we can't ignore a phone when it rings? I don't see how this is going to solve anything, I expect the only people who will use this are the ones who already don't talk on the phone when they drive - similar to the parent statement. Some people like to talk on the phone and simply won't use this feature. I would generally say anyone who buys this deserves a Darwin award, or something similar.
There are already ways to do nearly exactly this:
1) don't answer the phone when driving,
2) turn off the ringer and buzzer,
3) turn off the phone.
Option one requires the most fool proof way, and also requires the least effort. The benefit of these three things are they are all free as in no cost.
Sorry, "emergency voice mail" sticks out as a very bad idea.
In an emergency, when somebody leaves you an voice mail, you immediately receive it, knowing that it's an emergency voice mail. You are therefore going to want to hear it ASAP. This involves actually dialing a call rather than pressing any button to answer the phone. While answering takes almost no effort and can easily be done without looking away from the road, checking voice mail requires reading the cell phone display and then pressing specific buttons to dial voice mail and enter the password.
If I've learned anything from driving with my cell phone, it's that reading the display and calling are far more dangerous than answering a call, especially if you have an easily accessible headset or speaker phone button. (My friends have learned that I don't know who they are when I answer in the car, since I don't usually look at the phone.)
Of course, the simple solution is to let the user press any button to acknowledge the voice mail and then play it on speaker phone unless a headset is active (all without prompts or passwords/unlocks), but I doubt they've thought that out.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
If it catches on I expect it would be a virtually free feature in later models.
Of course it will. But those later models will cost $10 per month more. And you won't be able to opt out and get a $10 discount.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Cars all seat just one in Canada.
Duh!
*sigh* No, it's something that you might want because it might make your life a bit easier. In the same way that having a phone at all makes your life a bit easier, or that driving a car makes your life easier, or that having an mp3 player vs a cassette player makes your life a bit easier.
If you don't want one, don't get one, but stop whining about people who can actually see a legitimate use for such a device.
I developed software that presses the brake pedal if you go over the speed limit... Big woo!
"It doesn't make it dangerous, it makes it less safe."
Dangerous (adj) Involving possible risk, loss, or injury.
So increasing the possibility of smashing your 2-ton vehicle (and you and your friends) into someone (or something) at 70 MPH isn't dangerous?
"There are those that are aware of the risks and take steps to minimize the impact."
Please tell the mother of the child you just ran over that you were "aware of the risks"... and decided that texting your friend about tonight's party was worth it. I'm sure that will minimize the impact for both of you.
Fact check. Around 41,000 people lost their lives due to automobile-related accidents last year. FORTY-ONE-THOUSAND. Last YEAR. Car Accidents are the leading cause of death for people between ages 6 and 27. There were over 6 MILLION police-reported crashes. Driving is one of the MOST dangerous things you can do. And anyone who deliberately chooses to increase the risks involved is an idiot. And criminally negligent to boot.
If it were just you I'd say go for it, and let Darwin settle things out. Unfortunately, it's also just as likely to be that aforementioned child, or the mother whose car you just t-boned in the middle of the intersection.
I know, it can't happen to you. Just like I'm pretty sure that 41,000 people thought it couldn't happen to them, either.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Whining?
Wow, thanks.
I'm sorry, but I still feel this is an answer in search of a problem. I don't see how this makes anyone's life easier, only poorer, but hey feel free to throw your money away at anything you like. It's your money and this is (or used to be) a free country. I however in true FOSS spirit will continue to use the totally free and far superior intelligent choice of ignoring the phone when it rings while I'm driving, unless it is an important call or emergency message and I'm in a position to safely answer it.