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

Here's the cure

[camperdave]

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

Re:Here's the cure

[BitZtream]

I like to drive, can we just make it more difficult for douchebags to drive please rather than replacing them.

Re:Here's the cure

[plague3106]

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

Re:Here's the cure

[rhsanborn]

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.

Re:Here's the cure

[Beardo the Bearded]

Here is a two-step solution to fix distracted driving:

1. Remove the airbag from the driver's seat.

2. Replace it with a bayonet.

They'll pay attention now.

Re:Here's the cure

[vjoel]

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.

No.

The motorcycle helmet law does protect me from someone else's medical costs coming out of my taxes.

Re:Here's the cure

[MBGMorden]

Are you kidding? About the only people I've found who LIKE to drive are teenagers for 3 weeks after they get their license and motorheads who make up 0.5% of the population. Everyone else likes to go places, but not to DRIVE.

If I could honestly just kick back with my laptop while my car drove me to work (or even better - on long trips - imagine just taking a nap in the back seat rather than stopping at a hotel for the night) then I'd be absolutely overjoyed.

I wouldn't call one of the biggest leaps on convenience in the last 200 years "another step towards becoming a nanny state".

Re:Here's the cure

[TooMuchToDo]

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.

Re:Here's the cure

[Killer Orca]

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.

Do you like living in an educated society or would you prefer that children whose parents can't afford school work in factories?

Re:Here's the cure

[jcoy42]

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.

Re:Here's the cure

[timholman]

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.

Re:Here's the cure

[Ethanol-fueled]

Factories. 12-hour shifts will solve the child obesity problem and keep them the hell out of my bread-line.

Hell, there should be a moratorium on having children, period. The asshole yuppie offspring of baby boomers (who are causing all of the world's problems and should just die anyway) are the ones creating fat, spoiled, apathetic little piggies raised in sterile environments. Those offspring should be stuffed in cattle cars and railroaded off to the maquiladoras regardless of the parents' ability to afford school, actually...

...if the motherfuckers endure a little hardship and learn to work for their things then we wouldn't have affluent little cocksuckers destroying the economy because they grew up with mommy and daddy paying for everything they break.

Re:Here's the cure

[TooMuchToDo]

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.

Re:Here's the cure

[commodore64_love]

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).

Re:Here's the cure

[cayenne8]

"No.

The motorcycle helmet law does protect me from someone else's medical costs coming out of my taxes."

Not sure how a motorcycle wreck (with or without a helmet) is going to affect your taxes any more than any other type of vehicle.

But, the argument is often put forth that it will cost you more in insurance premiums if there is no helmet law..and that is BUNK.

I live in LA, and two gov.'s ago, we had the choice to wear a helmet or not. Well, Gov. Blanco came in, and they made helmet mandatory again.

Guess What? You think our insurance premiums went down since we were all so much safer??

Not a chance...no, it makes no difference in what other people have to pay. I ride a bike....I pay insurance. I'm an adult and I know the risks...hell, a couple of months ago I was in a wreck, a SUV ran a stop sign and hit me on my bike, I went over the hood by about 5 ft and landed about 20 ft away. I only had one of the 'beanie' helmets on. I didn't hit my head and walked away amazingly unhurt for the accident. On that accident, I wouldn't have gotten any more hurt if I'd not had a helmet on.

Am I more likely now to ride with a helmet even if they do repeal the law...most likely. However, I'm sure as an adult I will at times make the choice not to wear one.

Either way it is my risk...either way it will not cost or save you any money on your insurance premiums.

Re:Here's the cure

[Runaway1956]

Beautiful idea. And, I'm not being sarcastic. People are insulated from the road. Years ago, travel was tiring, because you experience the travel. The tires sang, the shocks and springs conveyed the texture of the road surface into your feet and arse, the wind whistled past to remind you how fast you were going. The sound of the engine came through the firewall, quite clearly. All of that helped to remind you that you were TRAVELING at a pretty high rate of speed.

Today? Smooth ride, almost silent, no sensation of traveling if you just close your eyes. People are lulled into believing they are safe with all the airbag mumbo jumbo, wrinkle panels, seat belts, and the various gadgets that CLAIM to make driving safer. Marketing wants you to believe that you cannot get killed in their cars, and people believe what marketing tells them.

Mount that bayonet. Make an obvious statement that people cannot ignore. They WILL become safer drivers.

Re:Here's the cure

[darthdavid]

And advocating that others be forced to pay extra for something that you didn't have so you can pay less for a service that is no longer necessary for you but was in the past is hypocrisy. That's the problem with Randroids like you're all about 'personal responsibility' just so long as it's someone else getting screwed over.

Re:Here's the cure

[Beardo the Bearded]

I generally avoid bicycle lanes for this simple reason:

IT'S JUST PAINT.

It provides little, if any, protection against vehicles. I try to stick to trails that give a large separation between a bike and any given car, especially since most of those cars have people reading, drinking coffee, eating breakfast, playing the trumpet, under the influence, putting on makeup, shaving, texting, on the phone, otherwise distracted, or all of the above.

I prefer a nice, wide, 200-foot buffer zone with houses, trees, bodies of water, fences, and other impediments to vehicular traffic.

If I can't find that, I choose a lighter route one block over on side streets. It works out very well most of the time.

Cycling in a bike lane is done as a last resort. If I end up in traffic, I make sure that I can keep up with the traffic. Otherwise I'm an obstacle to traffic, and that translates easily to just "an obstacle". Over my morning commute, I am on trails 80% of the time, on bike lanes 15% of the time, and in traffic 5% of the time.

That 5% is going to get me hurt one day, but it's a smaller risk than coronary failure.

Re:Here's the cure

[cayenne8]

"Sure, but what's the cost of dealing with a major head trauma, vs. the cost of "I got up and walked away"? I would be surprised to hear that the former was less than US$5000, just for the emergency room, not counting long term cost."

Probably about the same if you have a perfectly preserved skull, but have broken your neck, and are a quadriplegic, or whatever. Look the only way you'd save $$ is to ban motorcycles completly.

Frankly, if I get hit that badly..I think I'd rather be dead than survive a motionless piece of meat that can think, but not do much else.

And one little aside. You know where most head trauma happens on the roads? In cars.

Why not require helmets in cars too? It sure would save money and lives....I mean, where do you draw the line? Life requires a bit of risk of life and limb if you want to live it at all. Why not let and adult make his own choices...?

Re:Here's the cure

[syousef]

My argument is that if you want to have children, you should have to shoulder more of the cost to have them.

The reality is you'll shoulder the cost if they're not raised right. They'll become criminals. They'll ruin the places and things that you love with mismanagement. Oh and what's the bet that you're not crying "personal responsibility" when you're asked to pay $10,000k for a simple visit to your local GP because he's in debut for $10M. Oh and the doctor treating you is the kid you want society to abandon to the care of their parents alone.

In other words you get a lot of benefit out of kids being raised well and having opportunities to better themselves and the world. So how about YOU take some responsibility instead of pretending you live in a vacuum that contains no children just because YOU don't want to breed.

Dashboard Cam

[CorporateSuit]

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."

Re:Dashboard Cam

[jo42]

And connected to a robotic arm that would smack the driver in the back of the head first.

Watched some dumb bitch run a red light while flapping her stupid mouth on a cell phone yesterday.

Re:Dashboard Cam

[spamking]

Or something that zaps them in the butt when they stray from their lane . . .

Re:Dashboard Cam

[clang_jangle]

How about replacing all the glass with big monitors and using sensors to replicate the outside environment as highly-stylized onscreen graphics, while awarding or removing points for performance based on safety, efficiency, and economy thus making driving a video game? I'll bet a lot of people would actually take driving more seriously then.

Re:Dashboard Cam

[natehoy]

We've got those in Maine, they're called "rumble strips" and they are a grooved strip of pavement that runs just outside the white lines on either side of the pavement. Maine did a BIG push for them a number of years back when a Wal-Mart truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and wiped out a car in the breakdown lane full of teenagers and a couple of good samaritans who had stopped to help them change their flat tire.

And, man, you drive out of your lane and onto one of those things, you KNOW IT. The vibrations feel like an electric shock in the arse.

Now they just need to put those along more roads and in the median.

Not a perfect solution, but it does at least help people stay where they belong in the lane.

Re:Dashboard Cam

[pwnies]

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.

Korean taxi drivers are insane

[Shane112358]

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.

Steering wheel spike

[RichMan]

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.

Re:Steering wheel spike

[TheLink]

You could be paying attention. That sharp point would just make it easier for someone else to kill you with their crappy driving.

Re:Steering wheel spike

[qoncept]

The threat of death is already present for drivers. People don't consider the worst possible consequences, they think about how likely they are to happen. It's unlikely to happen, so the consequences are meaningless. If hitting a car head on at 100mph would cause $200 worth of damage and there was a 50% chance of it happening, people would slow down. If it means 4 people die and the driver goes to prison but there's a .001% chance of it happening, they won't.

And blaming the safety features is just silly. Any fool can press the gas pedal while steering with the same knee and do whatever they want with their hands, no matter how old the car is. And they will.

Re:Steering wheel spike

[pileated]

Yep the answer is a threat, not another safeguard. Couldn't be simpler. Philadelphia had the good sense, finally, to make the use of a cell phone on almost any vehicle illegal just the other day.

But this is all obvious and has been obvious for years. The only reason that nothing was done has to be the lobbyists for the phone industry, and politicians who love their own cell phones, and have caved in to the lobbyists.

I know this sounds like the typical crap you read in comments: it's all a conspiracy by so and so. But in this case I just can't see it any other way. I wish this weren't true but I think it is. I can't think of anything in recent memory that has made me more cynical about government and it's easy co-option by business.

Re:Steering wheel spike

[pizzach]

I know correlation doesn't mean causation or anything but from my experience, the most vocal of the self professed "good" drivers seem to get in the most accidents. It's really weird...

How about a special license and exam?

[TheLink]

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.

Re:How about a special license and exam?

[Yvan256]

There are people who think they can talk and drive/fly at the same time and do it safely.

Those are even more dangerous.

Re:How about a special license and exam?

[ColdWetDog]

Ah yes, the "I can do this even if you can't" argument. Just like the "I can drink and drive, really I can".

This argument inevitably fails over time. Yes, you can text (or drink or watch TV or $random_distraction) most of the time. After all, look at all the idiots doing so each and every day. You don't always get into to trouble but clearly your risk of plowing into my ass increases with every stupid decision you make. As dose my risk of getting clobbered. Sooner or later, statistics wins.

Get over it. You're a number, just one point in the graph. And I want each and every one of you tiny little points focusing on driving. Tweet later.

Drive, damn you. Drive!

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

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!

Re:Drive, damn you. Drive!

[xednieht]

Could you repeat that, I was busy texting.

A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!

[DrPeper]

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.

Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!

[SnarfQuest]

It would be simple to create a device to handle half of the work parents do while driving, Most of it is available in greeting cards. A simple device that can be set up behind the drivers seat that automatacally says "No, we're not there yet", "Quit kicking the back of my seat", "Stop touching your sister", "Should I turn this car around", "There's an empty soda bottle back there, use that".

Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!

[Cro Magnon]

I use a low-tech method; Duct tape.

Is it even necessary?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Simple

[rehtonAesoohC]

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.

Re:Simple

[mea37]

You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted. Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving? Eating while driving? Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?

These behaviors are all dangerous to bystanders, and in any are with decent distracted driving laws they are all illegal; but those laws are almost never enforced, presumably because they aren't the big money-maker that speeding tickets are.

Also, while you can block radio signals into and out of a car - and indeed there are those who think certain window tinting requirements in CA might inadvertantly have that effect - this will probably only create a market for external antenna kits.

The only real solution to distracted driving is education. Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.

User education?

[girlintraining]

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.

Why bother?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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....

Re:Why bother?

[Zumbs]

A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records

How about the accident rate? I'm asking because improved protection of drivers and passengers is likely to reduce the fatality rate ;-)

Re:Why bother?

[DerekLyons]

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?

Re:Why bother?

[Hijacked Public]

Do you know the numbers and are being coy?

For the Us killed and injured is here. Accidents overall is here.

Re:Simple

[Chris Mattern]

The only real solution to distracted driving is education. Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.

The problem is, that's a solution that doesn't work. Case in point: every time something related to this subject comes up, we get the mandated number of posts from people who say, "Yeah, some people may not be able to drive while talking on the phone/eating a pizza/doing their taxes, but I'm really good, and I don't have any trouble doing it and staying in complete control of my car." *All* of these morons will hear the education and say, "Yeah, but I'm an exception."

Re:audio/video

[gorckat]

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)

Eh, that is what early cars WERE.

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Yes, it is.

[silanea]

Yes, it is.

Re:Yes, it is.

[Artraze]

Your answer is worthless: of course cell phones can cause accidents. The question posed was not whether they can cause accidents, or even if they _do_ cause accidents. The question is whether the introduction of cell phones has _increased_ overall accident rates. In other words, are cellphones just another drop in the distraction bucket? Without cellphones, would these bad drivers be reading the newspaper, shaving, doing their hair, etc. or would they be good drivers? For some reason I have a hard time believing the latter...

Re:Simple

[PitaBred]

"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.

Re:Simple

[camperdave]

The main problem is that most driving does not require a significant portion of your attention bandwidth: Stay in the lane, keep two seconds behind the car in front of you, don't speed. A couple of dozen transisters and some servo motors could do that. In a word, driving is boring. Our minds require stimulation. We crave it. Without it we would fall asleep. Many roads have curves and hills built into them just to provide some stimulation to keep drivers awake. The reason you get people saying "I don't have any trouble doing it and staying in complete control of my car." is that, for the majority of driving situations, it's true.