Slashdot Mirror


Wireless Invention Jams Teen Drivers' Cell Calls

alphadogg writes "University of Utah researchers have invented technology that could come to be embraced by teenagers with the same enthusiasm they have for curfews and ID checks. And like those things, it could save their lives. Key2SafeDriving technology uses RFID or Bluetooth wireless capabilities to issue signals from car keys to cell phones to prevent drivers from talking on their phones or texting while driving. A company called Accendo LC of Kaysville, Utah has licensed the technology and is working to build it into commercial devices that could be on the market next year. The company is sorting out how to bring the technology to market, but one possibility is that it would be made available through cell phone service companies and could also be tied in with insurance companies, which might offer discounts for users."

29 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Great Idea!! by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if she is carjacked and raped, at least the assailant won't be burning up her Roll Over minutes!!

    1. Re:Great Idea!! by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Car has flipped, but the battery is still connected- good thing I can't make an emergency phone call!

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:Great Idea!! by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA, 911 would be enabled.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  2. Jammed! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Funny

    And it's raspberry!

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:Jammed! by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only one man dares give me the raspberry: Lonestar!

  3. Re:um.. by Rinisari · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems to me that it would be tied to a single phone. It would be illegal to blanket jam, if I'm recalling FCC regulations correctly. A jamming signal might impair the communications of a passing vehicle.

  4. Hmm by LegionKK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great, now we're going to have people texting with their arms outside the window.

  5. Re:Sure.... by Talderas · · Score: 5, Informative

    The car sends a signal to software on the phone that disables texting and calling any non-approved numbers. 911 is enabled by default and the parents can set further phone numbers which can be called.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  6. Re:So... stuck in car pileup = no cell phone 911? by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently nobody bothered reading the article. The device is coupled with the cellphone and is provided by the cellphone company. It doesn't jam the phone it simply tells the phone not to make or receive calls. It does allow 911 calls.

  7. Re:So... stuck in car pileup = no cell phone 911? by gblackwo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try reading the article next time. This is a willingly used device. It also doesn't jam signals in any manner you are speaking of.

  8. Unsinkable by CommandoCody · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good thing no teenager is tech-savvy enough to bypass this. I hear they're working on a porn filter next.

  9. Powered on how? by phorm · · Score: 5, Informative

    So the key sheath what sends the signal... meaning that it's going to be extra expensive to lose/break/etc?

    It seems to depend on a lot of factors that aren't going to go over very well:

    a) You need the key

    b) You need a supported phone

    c) You need your phone tied to the key

    d) The auto-response feature won't work against landlines or phones that don't support texting (in the ad it shows a text message).

    Overall, it generally looks really fucking irritating. I avoid the phone when possible if I'm in the car, but there can be reasons to make a call when stopped etc (running late) or to receive calls in an emergency.

    The question of "what if it's a business call" and the answer of "it'll text the caller that you're driving" isn't going to go over very well, nor it is going to when your mother calls 5-min in to say "your dad is in the hospital" while you're headed out to a 4h drive...

  10. 911, but not Mom? by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if 911 is allowed, other highly relevant calls cannot be made.

    This is like speed bumps: sounds good, until the ambulance or cop can't get to you in time because they have to go from 50 to 5 MPH periodically in the area, or can't move because they bottomed out the vehicle after hitting one at 50 after not seeing it.

    How about facing the reality that bad things happen to stupid people doing stupid things, and teach kids to not be stupid? Proactively blocking their every move because they might do something dumb does not turn them into responsible adults.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:911, but not Mom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't teach stupid people not to be stupid. They can't learn in the first place, that's why they're stupid!

    2. Re:911, but not Mom? by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about facing the reality that bad things happen to stupid people doing stupid things, and teach kids to not be stupid?

      I'm all for it. Stupid people should face the consequences of their actions. Teens who talk on their cells while driving are about as stupid as they come. Let 'em have it... I just don't want to be in the oncoming lane when they finally learn their lesson.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    3. Re:911, but not Mom? by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, preventing them from learning by experience is likely to have the opposite effect of the one intended.

      You're absolutely right. I just don't want your learning experience to end in a head-on crash with my car.

      Cars are dangerous. Driving your car is probably the most dangerous thing you do every day (unless your a Marine or firefighter) for yourself and others. You really think society should just toss kids the keys and let them learn on their own?

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    4. Re:911, but not Mom? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can do the math - teens are stupendously bad drivers compared to much of the rest of the population. Fortunately due to the financial component - it's not hard to collect a lot of information on accidents.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:911, but not Mom? by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah.. those stupid teens.. because adults never drive stupid.

      Teens are a group of people who have a very high rate of accidents compared to the general population. Society has no problem restricting the driving privileges of other high risk groups: the elderly, the vision impaired, and the drunk. What's so different about singling out one more high-risk group and protecting ourselves from the collateral damage they are more likely to cause?

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    6. Re:911, but not Mom? by Bozzio · · Score: 4, Funny

      .. because adults never drive stupidly .

      There, I made you look less stupid.

      --
      I just pooped your party.
    7. Re:911, but not Mom? by wonkavader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate speed bumps too, but "bad things happen to stupid people doing stupid things" ignores the corollary that "bad things happen to people who get hit by cars driven by stupid people doing stupid things"

    8. Re:911, but not Mom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have no problem curbing the elderly? You're full of shit, and every wreck with them getting confused and barreling through a farmer's market proves it. Every time AARP shoots down a law requiring not revocation on age, but TESTING after a certain age to ensure safety proves you wrong.

      They go after teens because teens have no rights or lobbies. Other groups fight like hell because they're made of people that have lobbies, money, power, and rights. Teens just take the brunt of everybody's shit because they have no rights or money.

      That's not to say they're not bad drivers; they often are. It's just that claiming there's some kind of fairness on the issue is pretty myopic.

    9. Re:911, but not Mom? by johnsonav · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every time AARP shoots down a law requiring not revocation on age, but TESTING after a certain age to ensure safety proves you wrong.

      All it proves is that the elderly turnout on election day dwarfs that of any other age group.

      Teens just take the brunt of everybody's shit because they have no rights or money.

      Teens are also one of a few groups that everyone has been a member of at one point. You'd think with all of us former teens, still scarred from society's relentless abuse, would rally around the cause of eliminating teenage oppression. But we don't. You know why? Most of us look back at how unbelievably stupid, reckless and irresponsible we were as teenagers. With age, comes some perspective.

      It's just that claiming there's some kind of fairness on the issue is pretty myopic.

      I never said it was fair, only justified.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    10. Re:911, but not Mom? by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All it proves is that the elderly turnout on election day dwarfs that of any other age group.

      No, come on: you don't think any other age group would stand for the same treatment, do you? If a new study showed that the most dangerous group of drivers were actually, say, 30-40 year olds, you can be sure they wouldn't be banned from the road either.

      It's not about turnout among the elderly. It's about young people being disenfranchised. They're discriminated against at every turn because they're powerless to stop it.

      You'd think with all of us former teens, still scarred from society's relentless abuse, would rally around the cause of eliminating teenage oppression. But we don't. You know why? Most of us look back at how unbelievably stupid, reckless and irresponsible we were as teenagers. With age, comes some perspective.

      That's one theory.

      Here's another: most adults don't care about teenage oppression because it isn't their problem anymore. It's easier to just ignore it as soon as you turn 18, or 21, than to keep fighting for a cause that doesn't benefit you personally. Many of them also feel a perverse sense of justice in subjecting the next generation to the same poor treatment that they themselves had to face.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    11. Re:911, but not Mom? by WAG24601G · · Score: 4, Insightful
      OK, I started out modding, but I'll give up the mod points to reply here...

      How many times do we have to go through the tired "Group A is a higher risk for X, therefore Group A should be systematically banned from it" solution? If dangerous driving is the problem, address it with a solution that targets unsafe drivers, not the group that has a higher proportion of unsafe drivers. How many Slashdotters suddenly fall on the other side of this issue when we're talking about airport screening? Racial profiling and age profiling are equally dirty games to play.

      Teens are also one of a few groups that everyone has been a member of at one point. You'd think with all of us former teens, still scarred from society's relentless abuse, would rally around the cause of eliminating teenage oppression. But we don't.

      This is also a tired argument. The other side of your point here is that none of us ever have to worry about being teenagers ever again. The level of personal risk is a *much* more salient factor for most people, I suspect, and in this case, it's zero. How many of the extravagantly wealthy are looking back on their humble beginnings and championing the causes of the poor? Some notable examples, yes, but not as many as those of us who know it could be our names on the welfare applications next year.

      Well, I suppose this story is too old and the thread too long for my comment to get much visibility, but maybe I've at least enriched one person's perspective?

      --
      Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
  11. useless & easy to circumvent by shalla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the biggest problem I see with this is that it essentially requires the driver to voluntarily use a matching key and cell phone that are sold as a set.

    If the driver were going to voluntarily not talk on the cell phone, they could just not do it and save the money.

    If you give this to a teenager and think this means they won't be texting or talking on a cell phone while driving, you need to spend more time with teenagers. As soon as there's another person with a cell phone in the car with them, they can borrow that cell phone to talk or text. If they're more devious (and have the money), they'll just get themselves another cell phone. If they really want to talk or text while driving, they will. This isn't going to stop them unless they're all alone in the car and very conscientious to begin with.

    Giving it to adults as some sort of insurance incentive? That's a laugh. Adults are even worse than kids about working the system.

    1. Re:useless & easy to circumvent by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 3, Informative

      Scenario 1: Driver is conscientious, doesn't use phone while driving anyway. - Key not needed, save the money.
      Scenario 2: Driver is tech savvy, turns off bluetooth on phone while driving. - Driver can't use headset, driver can and will still make calls. Key not needed, save the money.
      Scenario 3: Driver is smarter than a rock. - Driver copies key, uses bluetooth headset and makes calls anyway. Key not needed, save the money.
      Scenario 4: Driver has friends. - Driver borrows phone, can't use bluetooth headset, makes calls anyway. Key not needed, save the money.
      Scenario 5: Driver is psychopath. - Driver goes on a rampage because of parental failures, kills people randomly until driver is killed. Key not needed, save the money.

      In summary, save the money.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
  12. Re:An alternative suggestion by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or you could, you know, trust your kids.

    Another question is: Can I trust your kids? Seeing as we're on the same road and all.

  13. Re:An alternative suggestion by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or you could, you know, trust your kids.

    Trust isn't a boolean. There are many things I trust my kids with, but there are other things I don't. In particular, I don't trust my kids to always show good judgment, ESPECIALLY where their friends are involved. The classic parent question "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" is so classic precisely because the honest answer to that question is often "Yes!".

    Another area where kids' judgment is often poor is around their own safety. Most kids have only a vague sense of their own mortality and fragility, at best. As a result, they often run risks that adults would not. Worse, kids are new drivers, and new drivers often underestimate the difficulty of operating a vehicle. The controls are simple, the traffic rules aren't bad... how hard can it be? It takes a few years to truly understand in your bones that brief inattention can combine with someone else's mistake to KILL YOU.

    Yet another issue is that kids are generally very impatient, and will often make foolish decisions because they want something NOW.

    15-17 year-old kids driving with cellphones combine all of these in one dangerous package. Talking to their friends is just about the most important thing in the world to them, and they want to know NOW whether or not Marinda thinks Jaden is hot, and they're completely certain of their ability to talk or even text while driving, never mind the fact that they've only got a few dozen hours behind the wheel.

    Now, I can tell my kids until I'm blue in the face the reasons they should not use their phone while driving, and I can even order them not to, threaten to take their phone and/or car privileges away if I ever find out they did it, etc., but none of that will work, because of one simple fact:

    They think I'm wrong.

    Moreover, they think I'm stupid, that I don't get it, and that I don't understand them. The same thing virtually every teenager who has ever lived has thought of their parents.

    In general, that's actually a good thing. Questioning and even disregarding your parents' opinions and advice is an important part of growing up, of establishing your own identity and learning to think for yourself. I fully expect that my kids are going to disregard much of what I say (though it still irks me), and to a large extent I'm perfectly happy that they're going to make mistakes and bear the consequences of those mistakes.

    There are, however, exceptions. Areas in which I do NOT want to allow them to make the mistakes they want to make, because I know what the consequences are.

    For example, I don't want them making mistakes that may kill them dead. There's no chance to learn from such mistakes. Likewise, even though they're survivable, I really don't want my son to get hooked on crack, or my daughter to get knocked up (or my son to knock up some other girl). The consequences are too severe, and the lesson can be learned by observing others' mistakes. No need to make every possible error.

    Should I simply trust my children not to make foolish decisions that may kill them or get them addicted or pregnant? Statistically, it's pretty clear that's a BAD IDEA. Instead, I keep a leash on them. I know what sorts of parties they go to, and what sorts of friends they keep. I know what kind of boys my daughter goes out with and, more important, I impose curfews and other limitations intended to reduce the opportunities for getting carried away. I could go on... these are relatively old problems and the solutions are well-understood.

    Cellphones and cars... that's a new one. And unlike crack or sex, it's something that's unlikely to progress slowly, with plenty of warning signs I can key in on. It only takes once.

    So, I like this idea. I think it's a useful tool. Do all kids need it? Of course not. Good parents know their kids, know which ones will ignore them and which ones will listen, and act accordingly. In my case, one of these systems would be a waste of money for my son, but if they're on the market I WILL buy one for my daughter.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  14. Re:hey naysayers by Fastolfe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By the same logic, we should ban driving entirely, because teens kill even without cell phones. As always, a proper cost-benefit analysis needs to be done.