Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC/DOT Want High-Tech Cure For Distracted Driving

Posted by timothy on from the by-which-I-mean-actual-korea dept.

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.

14 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. Here's the cure by camperdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:Here's the cure by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Travel using the common means of the day is a right, and the supreme court has ruled as much.

    2. Re:Here's the cure by rhsanborn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.
      Banning violent video games = nanny state.
      Seat belt law = nanny state.

      There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving. Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves. Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.

    3. Re:Here's the cure by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I shell out almost 20K a year in medical insurance ($250 on my side, my company pays $1400). My medical costs don't come out of your taxes. I ride without a helmet (Illinois doesn't require it).

      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.

    4. Re:Here's the cure by jcoy42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's amazing how quickly a poor driver can learn to pay attention if you have them drive a VW bus.. where the vehicle ends about 15 inches in front of your face right where the glass is.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    5. Re:Here's the cure by timholman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You want a high tech cure for distracted driving? Easy. Get rid of the driver.

      Getting rid of the driver is the only practical high tech cure. Not only does it solve distracted driving, it also solves the problems of drunk driving, falling asleep at the wheel, and getting too old to drive safely. On top of that, it will prevent nearly 40,000 deaths, 2.5 million injuries, and $240 million a year in accident costs in the U.S. alone.

      Look at the features on high end cars like the Lexus LS - lane assist, automatic parking, collision avoidance, etc. In ten to fifteen years, we'll start seeing the first autonomous vehicles. Thirty years from now, we'll all be wondering how we could have ever been so crazy as to let humans actually do the driving.

    6. Re:Here's the cure by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      My argument is that if you want to have children, you should have to shoulder more of the cost to have them. You get federal and state tax deductions for having children, the ability to get pre-tax money out of your paycheck to pay for their daycare, very close to zero cost primary education (where I live in Illinois, you pay about $150/year to send your child to school), and that's just to start.

      I want to live in an educated society that promotes personal responsibility. That doesn't mean couples with children should get to freeload on everyone else's hard work. Be prepared to shoulder the costs you've incurred by the decisions you've made, or don't make the decision. It's that simple. Anything else is whining.

    7. Re:Here's the cure by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By this reasoning, since most accidents happen in the home, it's the job of the government to regulate your house and reduce medicare/health costs. This means wearing gloves while cooking, or else you'll be fined. Ditto if you climb a ladder - that will be banned. Hire a professional to do repairs or change a bulb in your house. Or yeah, and no more knives allowed that have points on them.

      This will of course all be monitored by camera, to ensure compliance with the law. We will, at last, know an accident-free society in our time! Thank you. I'll be running for the presidency in 2012 as the National Socialist Party (democrat for short).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. Re:Simple by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well sure, I would be mortified if something that extreme actually happened. But in history, the stupidity of a select few ruins the freedom of a much greater population.

  3. Re:audio/video by gorckat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll never forget the graphic drunk-driving presentation we got in high school.

    The picture of a dude with a rear view mirror inside his skull was a pretty convincing reason to not drive drunk. Only the windshield mount part was sticking out of his head.

    (CAPTCHA: blockage :P)

  4. Re:Why bother? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?

    It never occurred to you that just because nobody died in the accident that doesn't mean there weren't other consequences?

  5. Re:Dashboard Cam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A pharmacologically induced state whereby the subject perceives this to be the case whilst remaining safe and secure in government operated care facilities is the best way to reduce traffic accidents.

  6. Re:Simple by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Unskilled and Unaware". It's a great research paper. People who aren't aware of their actual limitations are more likely to overestimate them. Those who are tend to think better of the people around them and underestimate themselves. The only way to solve that is by education, like the GP said... get people in a simulator, and show them the actual difference between what they are doing and what they should be doing.

    Then again, I'm an exception ;) But I also don't text while driving, or turn around, and the actual task of driving always takes precedence over ANYTHING else that might be happening. Kid screaming? I check the road for intersections, pedestrians, and other vehicles before I take a second or two to reach back and get his pacifier back in. And that's done while still looking forward, watching him in the mirror instead of actually turning around. There's a "safe" way to be distracted while driving... the problem is that people don't prioritize those things very well.

    --
    My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  7. Re:Dashboard Cam by pwnies · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These have actually saved me a few times. I get very lethargic while driving - never knew why. It doesn't have anything to do with me being tired/well rested, I simply get tired while in a car. I've fallen asleep once while on the freeway. Woke up to the rumble strips, would probably be dead if they weren't there.