Slashdot Mirror
FCC/DOT Want High-Tech Cure For Distracted Driving
coondoggie writes "The Federal Communications Commission and the US Department of Transportation are teaming up to develop what they called high-tech solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers. The DOT and FCC said they will set up a working group to evaluate technology-based answers to the distracted driving problem and will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents, the agencies stated." Meanwhile, Korea has overturned a ban on dashboard TV-watching for taxi drivers.
You want a high tech cure for distracted driving? Easy. Get rid of the driver.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
How about a dashboard cam that simply sends the person a text if it sees them looking down at their phone while driving?
"Car ahead; 10 feet; brace for impact, retard."
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Get the FCC/DOT to take a poll of people on the interstate. Maybe flash questions on constructions signs, then poll folks via text message... I see great potential here!
--I like turtles...
After living in Korea for a year, and seeing some of the crap that Korean taxi drivers pull (including trying to beat up Western women for apparently no reason, running their hands through my leg hair, and various other strange antics)...I am convinced that Korean taxi drivers are clinically demented and all possible technological solutions should be employed to distract them at all times. Therefore, I fully support the recent move to overturn the taxi TV ban.
there was concern over & opposition to radios when they were 1st put into cars in the '30s...
Remove the distractions!
The government could pass a bill requiring auto makers to turn most cars into partial Farraday Cages.
This would potentially block people's cell phone or other portable distractions, and allow them to concentrate solely on the road. I'm not sure how well it would work with the windshield and all, but the reality is that the only viable solution to distracted driving is to remove the distractions.
Lasers.
I hate to say it, because I would hate to have to do it because others suck at driving...But require people every five years to go back through an 4 hour course where they remind people on driving distances, who has the right of way when merging on/off the highway, how far to stay behind someone at a stoplight. Either that, or spend the money on public service TV spots that run all the time that tell people not to pull out on a rural road when the speed limit is 55 mph or to always use a turn light for 10 seconds during a lane change. They might not "FIX" the problem, but might help over time by re-enforcing better habits.
I would guess the simplest solution would be a sharp point in the middle of the steering wheel.
There is nothing like the threat of death to keep one focused.
What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks. All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control. Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.
Reminder of the story of the person in the motor home who set the speed control then made a sandwich. Urban legend or not it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention.
I think what is really needed is to REMOVE technology from driving. Fuck that radio, fuck that phone, most especially fuck that laptop you have propped up on your steering wheel as you try to finish a paper on the way to class.
(... I'll admit it, even I have found myself doing all three at the same time on more than one occasion).
http://consumerist.com/5393720/3-cellphone-apps-to-block-texting-while-driving I think the better long-term solution is to have sensors built in the car that triangulate the phone's position in space, and locks out certain phone functions if it determines the driver is trying to use the phone. It checks the data against the speed of the car and the weight on all the seats, so the passenger could still use a phone, for example. But of course, you could always put a big chunk of lead on the passenger seat and then lean over and reach to that side of the car to send a text message...which doesn't sound very safe either...
There are people who can talk and drive/fly at the same time and do it safely.
So I'm sure a fair number of people can learn and be trained to do it under controlled and safe conditions. And that you can set an exam for it - e.g. on simulator they have to get from A to B through difficult traffic and road conditions while you ask them fairly difficult questions over a phone and they have to answer in a timely manner.
As for the rest who can't pass that exam, they should just be trained and learn to "shut up and drive" and "forget everything else and drive" when road conditions get difficult. It doesn't matter whether there's tech involved or not - you could be chatting with a passenger, fine but if the road conditions get difficult, just shut up and drive. If they can't even do this (which is easier), they shouldn't be allowed to drive. It's a matter of priorities - people don't take driving seriously enough.
I am, after 2 years, still recovering form the injuries sustained by a person in a large SUV talking on their cell phone who slammed right into the back of my car. I will probably feel pain in my left shoulder for the rest of my life. I would like to ask everyone to put down their phones and drive their damn cars!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
I've asked repeatedly, as politely as I can, for my wife (and kids) to be quiet and not distract me while driving. But so far my efforts have been completely in vane. Now if the government can come up with a high tech solution to keep them quiet while I'm driving, then perhaps my tax dollars are not a complete waste of money.
There is already a high-tech cure. They're called buses.
Has there been a statistically significant increase in accidents caused by distracted driving?
By significant I mean real - not just the result of changing the way accidents are reported.
If not, then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
In addition to the spike, we add an airhorn under the dash that randomly blares.
How about non-stop playing gory video clips of people dying in car crashes? We could throw in some screams as well.
Technology does not create policy, it follows it. This is a social problem, and technology is not the answer. It's just like copyright infringement, the war on drugs, poverty, or any other malaise of society. It's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals, medicine, computers, technology, money, etc., at a social problem fixes it. It doesn't.
Distracted driving occurs because of a lack of training and understanding regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. The correct solution is more stringent examinations and training before getting a driver's license -- training that will impress upon drivers the importance of what they are doing: Which is operating a several ton metal can on wheels at high speeds around other people, which if improperly used or maintained, can kill both the driver and other people. Look at Germany: I don't hear distracted driving being as much of a problem there, because in that country, they worship the car. They have very strict regulations for safety and the citizens respect the responsibility that comes with vehicle ownership and use.
In this country, however, we have a sense of entitlement about driving. We allow people convicted of drunk driving two, five, or even twenty times to retain their license. And then we impliment stupid policy decisions like stripping people of their license for failing to pay child support or taxes as punitive measures. First, a driver's license should be a certification in which the only factor for getting or retaining it is suitability to operate a motor vehicle. Secondly, people should be required as a condition of holding that certificate, to take refresher courses on driving and their vehicle should be subjected to regular inspections.
What we need to do is make people take their driving seriously, and we do that by making clear standards about what vehicles and drivers we want on the public highway system. Half-assing it with technological solutions only succeeds in creating a web of unintended consequences that trap innocent people without making a substantive or qualitative improvement to driving conditions for the general public.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
This reminds me of a poem:
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and wiggled and tiggled inside her;
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;
How absurd to swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records (1.37 per 100,000,000 miles traveled {0.85 per 100,000,000 km traveled, for you SI types}).
So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?
It's not people dying in accidents due to texting, since they're dying in accidents more rarely since texting became available.
And no, I don't think the one caused the other.
Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA - I don't see a real need for a high-tech (or any other kind of) solution to the problem of people driving with distractions....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Kilgore Trout, resident of Pindostan, a single payment of
Euro 100,000,000.00 for the cure for distracted driving:
3.00/liter gasoline.
Yours In Pindostan,
Kilgore T.
As I've said before, there are multiple kinds of distractions while driving.
There are eye distractions (tuning a radio), hand distractions (holding food), and concentration distractions (yelling at someone over a speaker phone, looking at a cop who pulled someone else over,etc)
A lot of regulations seem to be randomly concentrating on 'hand distractions' for no purpose I can make out. A better solution to those would be to provide drivers a place where they can safely put things, so only one hand is busy, instead of them attempting to juggle things. (And drivers can drive fine with one hand.) People need to set down their drink to eat their burrito.
Likewise, eye distractions can be reduced by more voice feedback in cars and more work on making controls people can operate without looking at them.
The biggest cause of accidents in cars, by far, is concentration distraction, where people could be concentrating on the road, there is absolutely nothing more important they're paying attention to. (The biggest reason is 'sleepy', in fact.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
self driving cars.
take the on-ramp.
enter your desired exit number on the keypad.
nap, text, whatever.
if the alarm goes off b/c the car is having trouble tracking the road, you either have to indicate you're back (hands on the wheel, deactivated alarm) or the call pulls over.
exit on ramp. same deal as the problem alarm, it pulls over at the exit or it reverts control to driver for normal driving on non-highways.
A person can be distracted by anything.
I'll admit that once or twice I've missed a turn because I was thinking too intently about something else. Sometimes I've even pulled into my driveway and all of a sudden realized that I didn't remember the last few miles and wondering if I ran any stop lights.
I'm pretty sure that if something had happened during the trip that required a reaction (like a red light) that my awareness would have shifted back but you never know.
You want a high tech cure for distracted driving?
Here's one: Put down the ham sandwich, makeup kit, and cell phone and pay attention to the road!
Here endeth the lesson.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Get a copy of any "Rachet & Clank" game, then implement many of those ideas. They may not actually help, but it would be entertaining for the rest of us.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I vote for mandatory in-car cell phone jammers that activate while the car is moving, but not while it is stopped. Need to make a call? Pull over.
Perhaps the fatality rate is down because cars are safer to crash in?
The real question is has the *accident* rate gone down.
High-tech, OK. How about the device that beams sound directly to someone's head. Then I can yell at the person yapping when they should be driving. Perhaps the millimetre-wave beam that heats skin to uncomfortable levels (does that work through rear window glass?). That should wake them up. Or just a plain old cell-phone-frequency jammer. Their calls keep dropping, so just maybe they'll give up. Nah... never mind that one.
Not-so-high-tech... a fire engine or locomotive horn mounted on my front bumper, or a remote-control paintball marker to mark their car, and we all understand that fuchsia splats mark those who occupy the driver's seat but engage in other activities.
Just take away, cell phones, the radio, tape player, CD's, and the iPod and have everyone get 8 hours of sleep. No need to waste billions of taxpayer's money, looking for a high-tech cure when a low-tech solution will work just as well.
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
Get rid of speed limits and design roads that have some twists and turns.
aka Try and make driving more fun that it currently is. There's always going to be that element of society that just can't judge what the right speed for a stretch of road is. But twists and turns *demand* a certain speed limit inherently. I'm sure I'm going to get whiney comments about why my suggestion is impractical for anywhere but Germany. But I would hope there'd be some out there willing to take the mental experiment.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
And NOBODY cared in early cars that the steering wheels and control knobs were sharp metal spikes ready to impale a driver who didn't even have the option of a seatbelt. In fact, seatbelts it was argued by someone in a desert would kill more people because it would take them longer to escape if their car went into water, the driver remarked, surrounded by nothing but sand for hundreds of miles in any direction.
People are idiots, no solution has yet been found to this dilemma.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, it is.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Why not just allow dashtop gadgetry, but only by passing an exam and earning (i.e. buying) a special endorsement on one license? If they charged you a few hundred bucks with every license renewal and made the test difficult enough, that should weed out the teenager/neanderthal crowd.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Isn't "Technology" Exactly how we created distracted drivers?
I, for one, feel that the more we try and fix this problem, and the problem of road safety in general, the more of a problem it will become. We're off-loading more and more responsibility and decision making off the driver, and as such, we're allowing the driver to not concentrate on what they are doing - piloting several tons worth of steel at, frankly, ridiculous speeds.
Safety innovations such as traction control, ABS, and cars that stay in their own lane and stop themselves (Mercedes S Class) have, no doubt, saved lives. But they've certainly helped allow for driver distraction (via safety complacency, and being able to get away with maneuvers you shouldn't) at least as much as the in-dash radio. Perhaps as much as the Cell Phone.
I really miss the days when cars required attention to drive them. When most people had manual transmissions, no ABS, and long braking distances. People payed more attention to what they were doing because they had to.
They want a High-tech cure to fix the problem of High-tech gadgets in the cars?? Does anyone else see the irony here? How about make it not worth the trouble to use the gadgets in the first place. Example: (Let's say....5% or your yearly income if caught txting while driving; or if you hit someone while txting, insurance it not required to pay anything and YOU have to pay for all damages). I bet you would see a lowering of people that are txting while driving in that example. That's the biggest problem with traffic laws...the penalties are WAY too small to be an effective deterrent.
I think there are some hidden factors at play. Specifically, cars have become comfortable cocoons with a smooth ride, automatic and power everything, tons of safety features, and for SUV's an above-it-all stance. These make it easy to detach oneself from the driving experience. Also, there seems to be more enforcement of speed laws and more traffic in urban and suburban areas. So, basically, any visceral thrill from driving has been removed from the equation, and without that driving is just plain boring.
Combine that with a bloodstream full of caffeine from starbucks and people need *something* to occupy this dead time in their commute. Further, with the wide availability and low cost of in-car television, MP3 players, satellite radio, cellular phones, pagers, cupholders, screaming children, carpool mates, animated roadside LED billboards....people's attention naturally wanders to something, anything, more interesting than staring at the back of the car in front of them in case the brake lights go on.
I, for one, would like to welcome our new benevolent socialist overlords.
Put a small light near the bottom of the windshield directly in front of the driver and have it blink at random intervals. After it blinks, you have three seconds to push a corresponding steering wheel button or you get hit in the back by a piston inside the driver's seat. Pushing the button when the light hasn't blinked will also result in getting hit in the back. Alternately, you could deliver a small electrical shock or maybe the steering wheel just comes off and the car explodes.
That will teach them.
...they don't go everywhere I want, when I want, and let me carry what I want. That's a big show stopper.
So phones can now detect your location through either built in GPS or triangulating you using nearby cell towers... Is it really that hard to just calculate your speed and if it is over 10mph (or whatever) disable the phone?
Sure there are other ways people can be distracted, but if we can cut down significantly on one of them all the better. Further I've seen some studies that show talking on a cell phone is more distracting than talking to others in your car.
How about teaching people how to F-IN drive!!!
In florida it takes $10 and a run around the block. They took out paralel parking because it was too hard!
You dont even need to speak english. No safty courses or driving courses required.
Once again government fails.
EMP bomb.
That takes care of everything except for mascara, breakfast sandwiches, and (shudder) newspapers.
Same as for drunk driving;
Detection - roadblocks, observation, more police.
Deterrence - fines, jail, suspension. Start the fines at $450, 48 hours jail on second offense, 3 month suspension in 3rd offense. Increment as seems proper. After 6 offenses, it looks like they would be texting from the bus, or their bicycle. The latter is where mandatory health insurance finally makes sense.
Ostracization - all the usual public campaigns. Of course ratting out drivers you are next to on the highway will come into play.
Non-technical solutions. Cheap, maybe even self-financing.
And don't think of finding a way to disable texting on my phone, you %^&holes. Do the above, and I expect there will be an app to do text-to-speech. As if there isn't one already.
Much as I love texting on the highway, I can put it down...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The problem is there's not enough pork going to somebody's congressional district, that's all. Dollars to donuts there's a specific lobbyist (and company) behind it all.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I say shock therapy. Wear some form of optic like the apache pilots have. If the computer senses that they are looking elsewhere other than their mirrors and in front of them, a small shock in the butt could correct this :D
Dewser - all around techy "In the immortal words of Socrates - 'I drank what?'"
The norm now is use the device anywhere: home, office, car, bathroom, supermarket, elevator, hospital, wherever. The world is your telephone booth. We all want to hear (one side of) your conversation. It's OK to force that on us. It's OK to threaten our lives and safety with it (the research shows that it's incompatible with safe driving, period). Go ahead. Do it. Anywhere. Everywhere. It's normal.
We can change that norm. A good place to start would be where it's just plain unsafe: driving while talking on your cell. The new norm: we regard that exactly as we would drunk driving: completely unacceptable. We treat it like that. We make law that treats it like that. Over time, that would save lives and limbs. A good new norm.
How to start changing the norm: stop talking on your cell while driving. You. Right there. You too. All of you. Now. From this day forward. Don't do it. When you see others doing it, be appropriately horrified. Have the same attitude you would towards someone's drunk driving. Not cool. Not acceptable.
We have no tech fix for drunk driving. But we have reduced it dramatically by changing norms.
Tech fix sounds great to techies. Probably not the solution here. If you put in tech fixes and don't change norms, you'll probably just see a lot of evasion of the tech fix.
they should really quit trying to prevent human error while driving seriously..
its a problem that never will be solved no matter how much time and effort you put into it
seems like a huge waste of time to me
if they really want to solve most driving related incidents, they would have to replace the driver as and earlier commenter stated.
Apple could allow the use of voice to text software for SMS on the iPhone. As one of the most popular handhelds, with no kinaesthetic feedback from the keyboard, it turns driving while texting from careless and foolish to completely reckless. Allowing 3rd party softwares to input text based upon voice recognition would seriously reduce distraction for people who, in spite of local prohibitions and good sense, continue to use their iPhones to text on the road. --PunXX
There are no technical solutions to a social problems.
Technology is useless without the social mores to add a bight behind technology.
1) (TECH solution) Only sell Cellphones with hand's free solution, i.e. bluetooth. Get ride of the useless
dangling wire.
2) (TECH solution) Only sell smart phones with a accelerometer in them. By default disable the phone's
voice and data services if the accelerometer reports movement faster the a man can walk.
3) (TECH solution) Insert a message in the voice and/or data stream that one party is driving. Make
it a regular message.
3) (SOCIAL solution) Make the partner in the call equally libel for damages and fines. The warning message
could be filed with the phone carrier for later legal prosecution. If you, sitting at home chatting with Dad,
while he's on the road, knew you and he could end up in jail, because you didn't put down the phone,
may you
would. Guilt is a good social modifier.
Build trains so people can get places without having to pay attention to their travel. America would get about 2 more hours each day to spend as it pleases.
I agree with the solution to remove the driver, the car should drive itself. In the meantime the FCC should require all communication devices have a method to block usage within a small radius with the exception of 911 calls. Then cars (front seat only), schools (Kids spend more time texting during class than they do paying attention), federal buildings, and other locations can essentially disable the ability to use any communication device.
"Water is fluid, soft, and yielding. But water will wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield..." So I say, you can try to manage the flow instead of stopping it altogether.
I say make a law such that when plugged in to the car port or charger, cellphones are given bluetooth-like functionality (mp3s & calls through the car speakers, etc), while not allowing texting (or a yearly changing list of functions that dont restrict the user *too* much). I hear the Verizon Droid seems to have the right idea of some kind of "driving mode" vs standard. With the coming wave of smartphone usage, people will really *want* to charge their phones while driving. And if a cop or camera see you not charging your phone, you get a costly ticket. It should change people's behavior like seat belts. Granted, its much harder to see the offense, so it will not be adopted as quickly, depending on how stiffly the laws are enforced, but it will change a percentage of people's behaviors (I'm thinking maybe 5%/yr topping off at 80% when everyone has smartphones). That percentage of change will save a percentage of lives, which is better than nothing, but at the same time not troubling people too much.
I, for example, am a habitual phone user in the car. Even though I know its dangerous, I just can't help myself - the smartphone is too damn useful & fun to use. I haven't been close to an accident yet, but if I were to get in one, I'd probably change, but a law like this would help push me a little harder. And if it forces phone & car companies to add cooperative, standards-forming functionality, it will keep me from getting too pissed off to complain to my congressman against it. And thats exactly what would be required to get any law passed at all.
Most people reading and posting on Slashdot will cheer on technology. However, some will want to overcompensate the other way to appear different and clever. Keep it in mind.
replace it with public rail transport, more efficient and more convenient in the modern age.
Driving sucks, driving in traffic sucks even more.
The automobile is soo last century.
Hope is the currency of fools
Education about distracted driving IS the cure. You can do things while driving in a safe manner. It's just important to know when and how. There are times when it's fairly safe (as safe as driving ever is) to glance at a text message or at that billboard out the window. There are other times when your eyes should never leave the road (e.g. High-traffic, high-speed situations)
If the hours and work conditions were not so bad I'd want to be a paramedic. Drive an ambulance all day and make a real chance in people's lives.
Why not go for the obvious solution?
Wire a cell phone blocker to the ignition of each car. Engine on = no cell phone. Engine off = cell phone permitted.
Driver distraction is not the problem, it is a lack of engagement in the task of driving. Most vehicles on the road today are sensory deprivation tanks. It's far to easy to switch your brain off, far to easy to drive with one hand fiddle with the sat nav and other things.
... I forgot the ettiquette here:
If you've driven a 3-ton SUV these days the massive inertia is well masked by soft high-riding suspension and steering that isn't connected to anything. The brake pedal is so light you don't really grasp what it takes to bring something like that to a stop. So instead of driving such a road going tank with more care and more margin for error since it is so much more likely to kill you or someone else, this is why you drive like an idiot at 80mph while talking on the cellphone in such a vehicle, because over and above a tiny econobox it doesn't feel as unsafe as it actually is.
Something you would not have done in the days of unassited steering and braking. In those days cars would shake and rattle and feel like they are coming apart at 80mph, it would have had you clinging on for dear life.
Even today if you agressive modify a modern car for racing it will regain a sense of speed. Excluding suspension changes, it's sound deadening materials and other NVH reduction measures that is the primary difference.
One thing I found about going to sports car over a family sedan is I started driving with both hands on the wheel.
They want technological soultion to distracted driving?
1. How about some steering wheel feedback, some plausible pedal feedback and a stiffer progressive spring on the throttle (one of the first modifications I do on any car). How about stripping out all the heavy sound deadening and replacing it with active noise cancelation that decreases or shuts off when you exceed the speed limit or start driving like a idiot.
2.Watch the road toll come down.
Opps
3. ???
4. Profit
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Do you have kids? Because I'm not a fan of my $5K/year property taxes with 70% of that going to our local school district, when I don't have kids.
[Devil's Advocate mode]
Would you be more of a fan of his unemployable kids going on welfare?
[return to normal property tax hating mode]
The NDR, operated by bureaucrats in one state who don't see a problem with reporting a license suspended 31 years ago (after I no longer lived there), bureaucrats in my state who, though I have been a licensed driver here for many years, simply refused to renew my license because there is a "hold" from another state and also refused to offer any information on how I could correct the situation except to provide the phone number of the transportation department in the other state, and the bureaucrats in the federal government who see no problem with all this, because "There is no statute of limitations." and "Driving is as privilege, not a right." has, so far (After a month, the transportation department in the first state accomplished nothing except to "refer the matter to the research department"), been completely effective in holding up my license renewal, thus, in theory at least, protecting the nation from a driver who might, somehow, be distracted by worry over 34 year old speeding tickets.
That's just what happened to me, there's worse.
putting on makeup, shaving, eating your takeout burger which just spilled over your lap, drinking your coffee that just burned your mouth, and so on.
I understand the problem- I was almost T-Boned by a cell phone driver. They do things that are illogical ( because they really are not home ).
But there are lots of kinds of distracted driving. Hell, most people on the road are in a partial trance anyway.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Why is it that a statistically insignificant number of people with a good sob story can change legislative policy?
Do we really need another law for that? I'm sorry, but I grew up at a time before seat belts when we used to put sleeping bags in the back of cars during long car trips and go to sleep in the back while mom and dad drove us to our destination. If you were to do that now the parents would be hauled off to jail for negligence.
I hate this one bad apple mentality. There are 310 million people and counting in the US; one persons daughter gets killed by a repeat offender and goes on a moral crusade and we now have 3 strike laws. You get busted for pot 3 times and you're in jail for 30 years. What kind of messed up society do we live in?
I'm sorry that you can see idiots using their cell phones so they become a scapegoat for all bad drivers. No matter what solution they come up with there will always be automobile accidents. They are part of life. It really sucks that a few thousand people can ruin it for millions of us.
solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers Is there any evidence that this problem is, in fact, growing? An article linked from that article said, New research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that nearly 6,000 people died in vehicle crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver in 2008, LaHood said, about one-sixth of the 37,000 vehicle deaths reported last year. But that doesn't tell us what the first derivative is doing.
I forget what 8 was for.
You mean like having passengers in the vehicle who still possess tongues?
I'd love to see how they argue their way out of discouraging passengers when they're discouraging/prohibiting everything else.
Just make the distracto gizmos not work if they are moving more than 5 MPH
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When did he say the DMV should decide when to revoke your license? They're the ones that give it to you.
Here's how to get 90% off the crappy drivers off the road.
3-5 at-fault accidents in any 3-5 year period-> license revoked for a long time
3 times caught driving while talking on cell-phone -> license revoked for a long time
No exceptions. Get an expensive lawyer if you want to appeal the decision. So what if the rich can get away with it. They'll just lose more when they get sued. You'll still make the roads much safer.
Special emphasis on cell phones: Messing with climate control or eating is nothing like talking on the cell phone. When you mess climate control it takes only a second, and usually you know where the controls are so you don't always have to look down. Talking on the cell phone is something you do over several minutes not seconds.
From my experience, it seems the problem stems from the fact that we are already too safe (or perhaps, we simply believe we are already too safe) when we drive. This, I believe, is directly correlated to the size of vehicle you drive. When your transportation feels more like an extension of your living room -- where you feel safe, and therefore don't pay attention to what is happening around you -- it is easy to become complacent and stop driving defensively. The more insulated you are from the outside world, the less you are going to pay attention to traffic around you. Furthermore, drivers of large vehicles seem to think that the size of their vehicle will keep them safe in an accident...whereas I, having spent all but the last two years on the road in small sport-compact cars, would rather avoid the accident in the first place, so I drive like everyone else on the road is actively trying to kill me :) Even so, when I started riding motorcycles -- where you really feel exposed* -- I was amazed at how much more I began paying attention to traffic around me. Technology won't fix this; complacent drivers will only become more complacent if they feel like "big brother" is watching over them.
*the first time I stopped at a red light in traffic on my bike, I had a difficult time squelching the little voice in my head that was asking what possible reason I could have to be just standing in the middle of the road like an idiot, lol.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When the steering wheel is not in contact by two hands for more than 1 second, car goes into neutral, if untouched for more than 5 seconds an electrical shock given to the driver and passenger through the seat.
Can also accompany by beeping and flashing lights to warn others that announce the driver as an idiot that is putting him and everyone else in danger.
This would also work great for those falling asleep at the wheel
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Turn the phone off.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
6000 accidents that MIGHT have been caused by distracted driving..maybe.
That is very few, and there is no high tech way to stop it with the sole exception of removing the driver.
Why don't we just limit cars to 40 MPH?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Example one. When GOING THROUGH A CROSSWALK, they ALL TURN OFF their lights. That's the stupidist thing I've ever seen. I remember coming back from Pusan, down south, and trying to get to a camp up by CRC (Stanley). We had to be back by curfew (sundown, I think it was, else you get shot, or something like that). We had the cab driver haul ass to get us back in time, and as he zipped through crosswalks, he turns off his lights then back on. We thought he was nuts but they all do that. Since we got back just in time, I've no idea what if he, the driver, was shot; there was no way he'd make it back to Seoul. This was 1979/80. Weird place. Go out in the country and seeing dogs hanging from bridges is not an unusual sight. And man, don't drink the water !! You will get sick.
The FCC and DOT ban TV on a dashboard. OK, so the screen in my car in europe will show TV when the car is off, but not here. My Icom 7000 ham radio had the potential to receive TV but it was crippled to avoid this hazard, as if the two by three inch screen was a clear danger. Now that analog TV is dead, it's all moot. Meanwhile, today, I saw the usual sport-ute drivers in the left lane at 75 mph oblivious on the cell.
Seriously - do we REALLY need more government cash spent on working teams, zillion dollar experiments, etc, etc.
The simplest and most cost effective answer (beside replacing airbags with bayonets, which I really like) is to take all that cash you want to spend on working groups, R&D, grants, research etc, and spend it on [drumroll]
ADVERTISING!!!!
Yes, you read right. Use the media - T.V., newspapers, and statistics in that driver's manual, to EDUCATE people about those dangers. Show pictures of twisted metal and flesh, paraplegic teens, and wankerless men (works well) to drive home the point that distracting yourself increases your likelyhood hood of getting injured while texting and driving.
Not to mention, even a preventable fender-bender can raise insurance rates. Hit 'em in the wallet.
If advertising didn't work, I'd have to wonder why myriad web-sites (like slashdot) are supported by advertising.
design a computer that can drive a car for a person. Pass a law that all cars must have the computer driver device installed in them. When a person gets drunk or sleepy they turn on the computer driver autopilot and set a destination and it plots out the safest route and drives there for them. The computer driver will have cameras on the cars with heat sensing, motion sensing, and light intensifying features to make sure it doesn't hit anyone or anything and the database will be updated via satellite for the GPS data, stop light data, speed limits, etc.
You already have smart GPS devices the next step would be a computer based GPS system that can drive a car when the driver is passed out, drunk, sleepy, or distracted in some way. Just have it switch to autopilot when the driver is having problems controlling the car or their eyes are closed shut for a certain period of time or some other sensor to indicate the driver cannot drive a car properly.
I am sure some politician will eventually pass a law that requires all cars be driven by computer and not human beings.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
this is exactly right, the numbers come up here in NH each time the nanny staters get their panties in a bunch about seeing somebody doing something dangerous.
IIRC, the cost difference per accident is about $125,000. There are also many fewer organ donors since helmets became popular. In the ER, they called them "donor-cycles".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The problem here is that we've added so many features to make driving "easier" that people don't believe they *have* to pay attention anymore.
The solution isn't less driver involvement, it's more. Get rid of traction control, driving aids, turn-by-turn GPS, and all the other power double-automatic buttwipe systems, and people won't be under the impression that all they have to do is generally point the steering wheel in the vague semblance of the direction they want to end up to get there safely.
If you don't feel that you can safely navigate a car without driver aids, then make use of public transportation, and free up the roadways for those of us that *enjoy* driving. Everyone wins.
The obvious solution is to add a motion detection circuit to these devices. When they move faster than, say five mph, they turn off or go blank until their motion drops below the threshold. Detecting motion could be done in several ways: (1)doppler shift of the tower signals, (2)triangulation shift of the phone location, (3) GPS location shift, etc. This is a no-brainer.
Enclose the passenger compartment in two layer of copper mesh. Phones and TVs will not work inside the car. Task complete.