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.

Comments

Re:How about a special license and exam?

[netruner]

It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent. What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern:

1.) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs
2.) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios
3.) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets
4.) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was
5.) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like
6.) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do

The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on. Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such? Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.

Re:Drive, damn you. Drive!

[hatemonger]

You're right. We should pass laws based on anecdotal evidence. "I am truely sorry for your lots" but there were bad drivers before cell phones.

Re:I got this one covered

[mcgrew]

Great idea, fight distracted driving by adding another distraction.

I know, woosh and all...

Re:Here's the cure

[syousef]

So I'm taking personal responsibility by shelling out for other people's decisions? Your post makes no sense.

That's because you don't understand that you're part of a scoiety, derive benefit from that society, and must therefore contribute to it if you want to take responsibility for yourself. No man is an island. You need to pay for what you use whether it's direct use or not. YOU will benefit if the people around you catch a few breaks that make the difference between raising their kids properly and letting them run wild.