Slashdot Mirror
US May Disable All Car Phones, Says Trans. Secretary
gambit3 writes "The US government may require cars to include scrambling tech that would disable mobile-phone use by drivers, and perhaps passengers. 'I think it will be done,' US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said on Wednesday morning. 'I think the technology is there and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones.' LaHood is on a self-described 'rampage' against distracted driving, and if making it impossible to use a mobile phone while in a car can save lives, he's all for it."
I'd love to see this happen. Just yesterday, I watched the driver in front of me smash his car through a fence into someone's backyard. He'd been on the phone. If someone had been in the way at the time, they'd be dead.
Unfortunately, the same corporate CEO's who make calls in their cars also buy congresspeople, so I think the odds are slim this kind of legislation would pass.
To make sure blowjobs aren't distracting our drivers.
weinersmith
So, if you're being followed by a suspicious person, and you want to call for help, you're out of luck because some douchebag like LaHood decided that you're not capable of exercising your own judgement!
Or, if you crash your car, but not hard enough to disable the jammer, you're fucked because you can't call 911.
Why the FUCK is this guy getting paid by the taxpayers?
Just disable all cars...
Ray LaHood is an idiot, BTW.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Try fixing my 1:15 commute before you waste money on this stuff.
Damned if I'll let the government blast me with radiation whenever I'm in the car.
Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...
I'll just keep driving my '90 suburban that doesn't have a jammer.
Looks like I'll be keeping this 2003 VW a little longer. Thanks for saving me from that future car payment Ray.
Ocean is land, covered with water.
You can't have a phone in your car, but they're allowing people to have in-dash TVs? Oh, and this is just great for you if you get in a crash.
"Hello this is On-Star ... I CAN'T GET THROUGH TO YOU!"
GM makes too much money from OnStar and Ford's "Sync" also uses cell phone tech. also "can't call 911 when car jacked and trapped in trunk stories" will be hot news items....
~corporate tool, but employed~
Does this mean we can get rid of Billboards and any advertisements visible from the road too? Their SOLE purpose is to make you look at them instead of the road. They are the purest example of distracted driving.
I doubt it would be very difficult to remove the power source from any scrambling device on my own car.
How long before a bevy of hacking sites specializing in how to disable the scrambling technology surface? Once you're able to get to them after they're slashdotted of course...
I'm sad that we cant trust people not to drive out into traffic while talking on a cell phone, and I'm sad that we are so afraid of accepting that risk as a society that we may pass laws like this. This is the question that I feel we need to answer before we keep doing stuff like this: If this saves 500 lives a year, is it worth inconveniencing 400 million people? 50 lives? 5? 1?
for example, the woman who is carjacked with her kids in her car who is calling 911/ texting in her pocket surreptitiously
if this moves forward, you will see certain hyperbolic people who will highlight these rare hollywood level heroics and decry fascist nanny state intrusive control freaks... etc... zzz
when obviously, in truth, most driving and texting is unnecessary, harmful, and should be stopped. if you want to text/ talk, pull the fuck over. end of story
so a good compromise would be to tie this lockout to MPH. under say, 5 MPH, texting and talking should be ok. and if you speed up, you spontaneously lose signal (or spontaneously get it back when you slow back down). so the poor humps stuck in slow moving traffic jams are adequately entertained, for example
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
because it will disable Google Maps GPS app
captcha: annoyed
so what kind of range are we talking here, jamming phones on the sidewalks and further in from the street where there happen to be driving cars by ? Could be fun, on the otherhand not having to navivate around people talking away on their phone, and ignore people around might be concideret a bonus.
Perhaps we should also ban drive thru restaurants, since they obviously lead to people eating in their vehicles. Maybe ban car radios and instead pipe in white noise so drivers cannot have conversations with passengers.
Not saying distracted driving is not a problem, but this is overkill in the extreme.
Oh, BTW, he'll need to get in touch with that other federal agency, the FCC before he starts installing jammers in cars. Unless of course as Secretary of Transportation he can get the TSA to do it. The TSA doesn't have to abide by any laws, regulations or constitutional provisions anymore.
Wow... What if I get in a crash? What if I'm on the road for business and there is an emergency at home? What if I have a medical emergency and have to pull over? What if I see a fire on the side of the road and need to report it (this has happened to me twice)? What if I'm pulled over and searched illegally or for some reason need to call my lawyer? What if there's a National Emergency and Mr. President is in his limo? Oh wait...they're the government, how foolish of me to think they'd be bound by the same laws as Joe Citizen.
So, a politician thinks that it's important for both your next automobile and phone to be DRM-locked, so that your phone will only work when the passenger is operating it (verified by some sort of computer vision, eh), or your phone will disable itself when it senses it's moving at vehicle speed, but only in a passenger automobile, not a train or bus.
Right.
Right after that, we'll get DRM-locked homes to protect us from all sorts of bad stuff: the wrong people having sex, etc.
I really don't think so. If the Secretary of Transportation wants to work on something good for safety, self-driving automobiles are much more likely to 1) work and 2) save lives.
Bruce Perens.
If someone is stuck in a car after a bad accident, when nobody else is around to help, disabling mobile phone use may prevent the person from calling for help (and may prevent lives from being saved as a result).
Wait, isn't the Register the UK version of the National Enquirer? Isn't the like taking an Onion article seriously?
I read the internet for the articles.
I'm all for it. I just filed a patent (10 minutes ago) for a faraday cage that fits snugly over cell-phone jammers. It won't interfere with the jammer's operation and has padding to help protect the jammer from damage in the event of an accident.
http://www.cellphonejammerjammer.com
Will this jamming technology stop you from calling for help after an accident? Will you have to get out of your car to make a call if your car breaks down? How about calling the police when you see a crime or a reckless driver? Is it incompatible with OnStar, LoJack, and other auto tracking devices? Will it break GPS navigation? If jamming phones becomes mandatory, will all existing cars have to be retrofitted to stay street legal?
Despite the transportation secretary's wet dreams, this will never, ever happen. It would be too much of an inconvenience and destroy too many entrenched technologies for the industry to allow such a mandate to happen.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Welcome to the Nanny State. We're obviously not capable of taking care of ourselves. Do the Democrats not realize that this is the kind of crap that fires up the crazies and gets Tea Party candidates into office?
and I'd like to know if this disabling happens when you get in the car, start it or put the car in gear. If you're in an accident, wouldn't you want you phone to work to call help?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Seriously, it seems to me the #1 cause of accidents is the bag of meat behind the wheel. Automate the whole damn system. It would help cut traffic problems as well. Sure the system might flip out now and then and a few hundred people could die, but really, it would still be less then the number of people who get killed on the road in any given month.
Pry the black box out of a vehicle and stick it in your pocket with a battery and you won't have to put up with idiots shouting into their cellphones in your train carriage/bus/cinema/restaurant.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Most of the ways I've seen discussed to do this are with speed sensors in the phone. That means if you are moving faster than x speed your phone won't work. The end result of this is that not only can you not use your phone when driving, your passengers can't use it. You also can't use it on a train, a completely passive activity.
People will find ways to use their phones. All these bans do is make them be more discrete about it. When will politicians learn you can't legislate away stupidity.
And suddenly an entire community of drivers begin attempting to jailbreak their vehicle. Let's hope disabling "safety" devices doesn't brick your car!
Although I disagree with LaHood on this one, your comment is fallacious. He is attempting to protect me from people who lack the skill to do two things at once.
Like I want to get run over by a 16 year old girl who is talking on the phone while chewing bubblegum and paying attention to her friends in her dads hummer.
I feel bad for all those abduction victims who won't be found or saved because their cell won't let them call for help after this...
Seems like someone at the DOT wants his pension early...
15,000 people die in the US on the roads, because anyone can get a drivers license. Driving really should only be done by PROFESSIONALS - people that make it a career to drive.
Get rid of drivers licenses for non-commercial drivers. Expand the public transportation system by 100x - trains, buses, subways, everywhere, door-to-door, quiet, luxurious. Add transportation based city planning, etc..
Anything but cars. Sheesh, in some countries, driving is only done by the lower-class. It's a pointless waste of time for people that have nothing better to do.
I'd much rather have the taxpayer pay for my complete transportation instead of having them just pay for roads and have me pay for the rest.
We have a government. Come on, we can do it. Let's raise taxes and expand government. After all, that's what government is for - to do stuff for the public, not to make you do it yourself.
Talking / texting while driving is definitely a problem, but this is not the answer! There's nothing wrong with talking on the phone when using hands free tech. And there's certainly nothing wrong with passengers talking on the phone etc. If they disable data that means no more Pandora, no more Google Nav, and no more wifi mobile hotspot for passengers on long trips!
Distracted driving also includes talking to passengers, looking at people walking down the street, thinking about the bills you have to pay, humming that top 40 song you heard on the radio yesterday, incessantly checking your speedometer instead of watching the road, because the police in your city use the speeding ticket as a revenue stream, putting on makeup while driving, eating while driving, adjusting the radio, yelling at the kids. looking at that flashing sign for the donut shop down the road. How is he going to prevent these even more dangerous forms of distracted driving? He can't, a driver who is susceptible to being a distracted driver can find something to get distracted by while more capable drivers won't be affected any more than they are by talking on their cellphones.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
The source is the Daily Caller, a right wing version of the huffington post. I'm guessing it is from quotes taken out of context and used for fear mongering.
Only the government can protect us from ourselves. Yeah, right.
Yet another example of legislating our behavior. So, while driving, why not also outlaw: eating; smoking; rubber-necking; loud music; etc.? (Perhaps because the masses would see this for what it really is.)
Meanwhile our driving tests are ridiculously easy. Germany (for example) has stringent requirements; we should also. But here, driving is considered a right (when in fact it is a privilege) and thus people feel they are automatically entitled to a license.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Music could be considered just as big a distraction as talking on one's cell, let's get rid of all stereos in cars! Ooo! Let's also spend a bunch of money to make sure to disable all music players brought into the vehicle ('cause children in the back seat listening to their ipods quietly is down right distracting as well!).
What price in money and freedom are we giving up for each life that is saved?
Before we go looking for a solution to people talking on cell phones while driving, how about we quantify the problem. How many people die each year as a result of someone talking on a cell phone while driving? How many of those are the person who was talking on the cell phone? How many of the remaining would have died anyway because the driver was doing something else stupid? Oh yeah, out of how many people on the roads? Are we talking 1 person for every 100 man hours spent on the roads? Or are we talking 1 person for every 1 million man hours spent on the roads? My guess would be somewhere in between but closer to the latter than the former.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Why not just equip phones with accelerometers? The phones would disable some or all features when the phone got up to a predetermined speed. Then again, if they, being the USDOT or other orginization, use the same contractor that NASA used to build the Genesis reentry capsule, the phones would prolly turn on when the car got up to speed anyways.
"Ray LaHood". One more example of a bureaucrat who believes that the government's job is to protect us from ourselves.
-jcr
Or, you know, from the dipshit on a cell phone barreling down the street in an out-of-control multi-ton hunk of metal on wheels because he/she isn't paying attention to the road. The driver's not the only one in danger. In fact, the driver's probably in the LEAST danger in that situation.
What if the driver got distracted by the radio, CD player, GPS, etc.? Clearly, an EMP (from orbit) is the only way to be sure.
This will be a part of the layered approach we will all come to appreciate.
Once all entryways and exits from our homes are scanners that send naked pictures of us to a central repository, and our phones can be turned off and on at will by the government we'll all be a lot safer.
As a TSA employee was molesting me and my family last week I felt an incredible amount of inner peace knowing that they were doing it for my own good.
It only makes sense that this would be extended to other parts of my life where I may be harmed.
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?
Imagine that, your passengers may talk to you while you're driving, so they should make the conversation jammer mandatory too. For instance, you couldn't start the engine unless every people in the car is gagged with a special device.
In fact I now have a better idea. They should put an IQ tester inside the dashboard, and you couldn't start the engine if you're a moron. This was is a sure win!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU! I hope you die lying in a ditch somewhere and can't call for help because your car is scrambling your phone.
Why is it, when technology has both a useful and an annoying potential use, it's 10 times more likely the annoying use gets implemented?
For example, my car has a seat belt light that comes on if there is a front-seat passenger who is not wearing a seat belt. No passenger, no light. My car also has a passenger-side airbag, which is disabled if there is no passenger.
But for the built-in nav system, the controls are disabled even when there is a passenger.
This makes no sense to me. What's the use of having a second person in the car if they can't act as navigator?
Sensors could easily be built in to the steering wheel to enable all interactive systems when the driver has both hands on the wheel.
I get that I shouldn't talk on my cell phone or text while driving, and I don't. But why shouldn't my passenger be able to make a call or look for the nearest gas station on the GPS?
This is just one more thing that will have to be cracked.
It's asshats like this moron who give Republicans a bad name. Most of the conservatives I know are way closer to Libertarian views on personal liberty than anything else, especially when I'm done with 'em.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
When the first person trapped in a car dies because his cell phone wouldn't work and he couldn't call for help?
So what happens when I'm in a car accident, bleeding to death, and reach for my cell phone and find out it doesn't work because some paper pusher decided I had to be *out* of the car to use my phone... Do I just die, content in the knowledge that it really was for the best?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
What's next, no radio? No talking to someone else in the car? What about children fighting in the back seat? You lean back to tell them to quiet down and then BAM! Car accident. This is only the beginning. Give them an inch, they will take a mile.
I want this sooooo bad. You have no idea how many times I've had to take evasive action in order to not be hit by idiots on their phones.
To all you people saying 'What happens when I'm in an accident and can't call 911" As soon as the car is turned off the jammer will be turned off as well, just like everything else in the car.
So, would this kill off my phone's data connection while I'm driving? Given my phone happens to be my navigation system, and it sort of depends on getting data from Google for map and route data, it sounds like this would make things considerably inconvenient for people like me. Hey, I wonder if this idea is sponsored by Garmin and TomTom!
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
1. Grow better drivers. Do this anyway.
2. If you must, increase the fines/penalties for causing a crash while on the phone
3. Or, you can go the nuclear option - remove all air bags and seatbelts. Install a 6" steel spike on the steering wheel, aimed at the drivers chest. Everyone becomes real polite.
So, I will no longer be able to use my cell while walking down the sidewalk because every car will be equipped with a jammer?
Wait, aren't cell jammers illegal? Isn't the reason they are illegal due to safety (can't make a 911 call to save a life)?
You don't even see the gas prices of the Autobahn gas stations until you exit the Autobahn because advertising is strictly prohibited.
Clearly OnStar and Sync will not only be given exception capability for the sake of calling 911, but they'll be mandatory in every car. Even foreign cars.
I hate it when people talk on the phone while driving. I hate it when people have their dog in their lap while driving. I hate lots of things about how people operate their vehicles. But I don't have statistics about the effects of these activities on real world automobile incidents. I also don't care to look it up. Could someone do the work and post back here? You'll probably find that talking on the phone and dogs running around in the car aren't reported to be significant accident causers. Texting, drinking, falling asleep, etc, are probably the vast majority of automotive tragedies.
Now, wanting to shoot someone in the face because they won't get off the damn phone and drive, where it does happen in the car, isn't necessarily an automotive incident.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Like pass a law preventing a 16 year old from driving, seems a more reasonable response.
Let's all just have hands-free phoning already. Is it really that hard to implement? Taxis have them at least.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
What in tarnation is wrong with your 1:15 commute?!? On my best day, hitting all green lights and pedaling with a tailwind, it takes me 5:00 to get to work, and a normal day takes me 8:00. (Don't get me started about those miss-every-light, upwind-both-ways days -- sometimes it even takes 10:00.)
Oh, wait a minute... you were talking a minute and fifteen seconds, weren't you?
(Hey, biking a mile and a half to work each day is rather nice. Getting to occasionally be smug about someone else's too-long-too-hard commute is lagniappe. And yes, I did buy a house specifically so I could easily bike commute.)
I think this whole idea is colossally stupid and unworkable for a number of reasons, but this isn't one of them. It would be simple for "them" to keep phones enabled for emergency calls, just as mobile phones with no plan are currently enabled for emergency calls.
www.clarke.ca
I am about to buy a stereo unit for my car with bluetooth phone receiver. The phone will connect wirelessly to my stereo allow me to be on the cell phone completely hands free. I will be no more distracted than any other driver who is talking to his passengers. How is this dangerous, and why does the government want to disable this tech innovation?
I am surprised no one else has mentioned this. If instead of blocking cel phones in cars they simply pass a law making it subject to a large fine if/when you are caught. Instant revenue stream.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Reason can be used to remove all manor of liberty.
For example! I can reason why they need cameras in your bed room to make sure you do not murder your spouse! I can reason why they need to be able to hold you indefinitely without just cause to make sure you are not a terrorist.
The problem with the people at large is that they forget that their government is composed of humans. If you think that your own neighbor is unqualified to dictate how you live your life perhaps one should be every bit as suspect of the government which happens to be composed of humans that are most likely NOT your neighbor and quite possibly on a spectrum of morals, ethics, and values that you do not exist on!
Liberty must be preserved or the government becomes a Tyrant, much like it is quickly becoming.
How many of you would seriously think that any of the founding fathers would be happy with the Nation as it is today?
What law is being violated again to necessitate this?
This guy just wants to sell his rf jammers and take business away from the bluetooth market. What's he invested in? Oops!
Here is an excerpt from the FCC website:
In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html
So, I'm driving home after a late night at the office. A server crashed and it had to be brought back up. Thankfully, I was able to get it back up and running and it's only 3:47AM. So anyway, I'm driving home. I live just outside the city past a nice suburb that keeps me close enough to the action to be city folk, but far enough out that the light pollution doesn't prevent me from seeing the stars at night. I love looking at stars at night. They're beautiful. But not now. I'm driving home. And it's dark and I'm tired and I need to pay attention to the road.
What was that?! HOLY SHIT!!! I just swerved off the road to miss a deer and rolled my car over in a ditch. The airbags deployed and something's broken and I'm bleeding. I can still reach my phone in my pocket to call for help. But I can't place a call. The goddamn cell phone scrambling device in my car is malfunctioning and still blocking me even though the engine is not running and the car's upside down in a ditch.
It's getting really cold. I can feel myself bleeding out as the next hour passes. If I could have made a phone call, I know I would have survived. But I can't. As my consciousness slips from me I think, at least I can see the stars as I lay here dying. I love looking at the stars at night. They're beautiful.
What about the house next to the highway? Would the occupants lose their signal every time one of these mobile signal jammers came barreling down the road? Seems like it would be more flexible to require the phone to detect motion using the built in GPS and disable certain features based on speed. For example, texting only works at 4 MPH or less (walking), voice conversations at 65 MPH or less, keypad dialing at ????, emergency calls always permitted, etc.
Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...
Sure and the reason they have to make the 911 call in the first place is because some stupid motherFer in front of them had been on the phone asking "Hey, what's Sally in accounts wearing today" and "Yes yes yes I'm almost there, NO! DO NOT tell me how Dancing with the Stars ended until I get to the water cooler with you girls..." causing him to demolish a family on their way to (insert activity of choice) practice.
I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
Next they'll be saying it's okay to grope my junk to save lives...
GPS navigation devices can download live traffic info using cellphones. How is this supposed to work if all cellphones are jammed?
OnStar can give directions using the cellphone network. How is this supposed to work if all cellphones are jammed?
You are in an accident and you need your onstar system to call for help. Can you be sure the jammer was disabled?
etc.....
There are too many uses for cellphones other than just making calls, many of which improve safety. The cat is out of the bag and it is too late.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I would like to see the hockey stick graph that correlates car accidents with cell phone usage?
Oh wait -- it doesn't exist? You mean.. car accidents have actually decreased per mile driven in the last few years even has cell phone usage and texting continues to sky rocket..
We've already done the cell phone in real life. And it turns out, its honestly not a big deal. It seems that if people aren't distracted on a cell phone they'll just distract themselves some how else.
Mount your phone outside your vehicle in a ziplock bag and use a Bluetooth headset.
Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars spent regulating the install, millions spent developing and testing, and the hundreds of dollars this would tack on to the cost of your car....
Beaten by a 1 cent dollar store bag, tape, and a cell phone accessory they give away free for most 3 year contracts.
About 6 years ago I crashed my car and the first thing I did after I was no longer dazed was fish out my cell phone and call 911. The faster that call was made, the faster first responders could get there. Thankfully nobody was all that seriously hurt, but I was glad I could summon help quickly, and without having to get out of the car. At first, I wasn't sure I could move under my own power (turned out I could just took a bit).
I don't disagree that distracted drivers are a problem but you get to the whole baby/bathwater situation. Deal with distracted drivers, maybe by requireing more stringent testing, better enforcement, whatever. Just having shitloads of rolling cellphone jammers is a bad idea. The prevelence of cellphones is something that helps make us safer these days. People can quickly and accurately summon emergency responders. That is of value, let's not fuck it up.
If you need help, just ram your car into someone else! That way, THEY can get out of the car and call for help. Of course, if your car is too totaled to do this, you're doomed anyways. Too bad we don't have, say, basically a hospital bed on wheels, with traffic priority over other cars to get you to the hospital faster. It could even have some sort of easily remembered number so you could get a hold of them REALLY fast! But since you won't be able to call anyone because your phone is jammed, this would all be largely irrelevant when someone ran a red light and smashed straight into you. Hell, they probably would've done it if they COULD talk on their cell phone anyways. Bad drivers are always bad.
There is no -1 Disagree.
Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...
I've had two friends go through DUIs. They didn't hit anyone or cause an accident yet were given DUIs for driving while intoxicated. The reason being that their reflexes were slowed due to the alcohol in their system. Distractions like handheld devices can cause just as much of a distraction and liability while driving.
So what do we do to people who have DUIs? It varies little state to state but in Virginia, they make you hire a lawyer and then you might have to spend a few days in jail and you might not be able to drive for a year and a number of other really awesome things. But if you want to drive, you have to get an Ignition Interlock (Car Breathalyzer) system installed on your dime. And pay for it to be calibrated.
Strangely, if you are pulled over for something else and are found to be using your phone (a secondary offense so you cannot be pulled over if the police see you doing it), you get hit with $200. Well, after the number of accidents caused by it, I don't understand why society doesn't treat it the same way. Give them the huge punishment like alcohol, make their insurance skyrocket and make them pay for the installation and maintenance of these systems on their own cars. And make it a primary offense so people can be pulled over. I mean stuff like this is funny but it's a serious threat to our safety.
I don't like what this man is proposing but I think this should be treated just like drinking and driving. I like how drinking and driving stats scare you. Well here's a pretty scary stat: talking on a cell phone causes 25% of all accidents! In this proposition's defense, I think reducing accidents by 25% supersedes the times when a passenger or driver would ever want or need take a phone call or dial 911 but I am all for making offenders go through the financially crippling proceedings that are affiliated with drinking and driving. That'll make people think twice!
My work here is dung.
Amateur (ham) radio user here, FTW!
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Can someone explain how you go about using 'scrambling tech' to disable a driver's cell phone without also disabling the passengers? I'm all for people not talking on cell phones while driving, but in my opinion this type of blanket solution is ridiculous.
to prevent nutjobs like this ever stepping out of thier homes/asylums. Is this nutjob related to the one who was trying to ban salt?
If you want to really save lives, crack down on seat belt use. Honestly, given the rate of increase of cell phone ownership and use, the statistics for highway fatalities have not gone up proportionally. Given that 10 years ago not that many people had cell phones and today everyone has one, you'd think listening to the distracted driving folks that the highways would be soaked in blood. That is demonstrably not the case.
Yes cell phones can cause accidents. Yes distracted driving can kill. But that doesn't mean we're having a huge epidemic. The only legal thing that might need to happen would be to help make it easier to win insurance judgements against accident instigators who were texting while driving.
A study by a not-so-unbiased industry group found in Canada that expressly banning texting or cell phone use while driving would simply lead to people hiding their phone use and cause more accidents. Stands to reason that if you're trying to use your phone and hide it from the police while driving, that you'd be a much worse driver.
Some regulation may well be needed; but completely going overboard with regulation or deregulation of anything seems to be a bad thing.
"Government official shoots off his mouth about his personal crusade, makes little sense"
Honestly... this guy, even if quoted correctly, is just saying what he'd do if he had absolute power over the law, because of his personal feelings on the subject. What he wants to do really doesn't matter. Despite the fact that he's apparently in exactly the right position to get this done, if you think about it he's basically a middle manager in a paralyzed government.
Does anyone remember when people in the US government at least tried to make an unbiased decision about whether a law or idea was good based on facts?
It seems like the kids of the Greatest Generation are destined to be one of the worst generations...
I really do.
---
ACME Jammer Corp.
...texting wifey, "Honey, I still need to bleed the brakes and tighten the steering wheel nut. For God's sake don't take the car down Switchback Canyon!"
Their they're doing there hair.
Probably easier to implement via phone software I think.
The majority of phones are GPS capable ( even if it isn't unlocked for the user ) so why not utilize it instead ?
GPS reports velocity to the phone, phone decides if you're going X mph/kph/fps that all calls except emergency
calls are blocked. 911 is still available to satisfy the 'omgwhatifadoctorhastodeliverababyenroutetothemovies'
people, and the majority of distracted drivers are dealt with.
Personally, I think folks should just get the snot beat out of them when found to be driving distracted while texting :|
via Twitter, or posting Facebook updates, or whatever. I really get tired of laws being written because the really
stupid people on this planet can't be depended on to do anything on their own.
From a certain point of view, Congress is nothing more than an overpaid babysitting service.
Just block the phone if it's moving more than 5 mph, from the cell towers (except 911)
The absolute most it would cost to disable such a device would be $200. Most people already pay that just to have their smartphones, so there would be tons of people disobeying the law. Plus, there could be no enforcement, there's no way to detect that such a device has been disabled. Therefore, the technology is NOT quite there yet. We need to go much more Big Brother before they can enforce this policy (don't get any ideas!).
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
Lahood says "U.S. may disable all car phones, blah... blah.... blah.....".
In other news, China WILL disable FORMER U.S.A.
Yours In Minsk,
Kilgore Trout
The most distracted driving I do is driving while parenting. If they make it illegal I won't have to do it any more.
make it built-in Bluetooth support. Sure, not everybody has a phone recent enough to have BT, but that law wouldn't take effect overnight anyways.
I won't feel safe from terrorists until the TSA and the Dept. of Transportation can scramble my passenger's cell phone calls and examine our naked bodies inside my car at the same time.
We should ban passengers in cars because passengers can distract drivers.
We should ban putting items on the car seat because if you stop sharply, the items can move and that would distract the driver.
We should ban car horns because someone blowing a horn can distract other drivers.
We should ban sirens on emergency vehicles because the sirens would distract drivers from the road in front of them.
We should ban dihydrogenmonoxide because it can distract drivers when it spills inside the car, when it gets splashed on cars, etc. (I'm ignoring that it is a major component of acid raid and that it is found in a high percentage of cancer cells.)
Fight Spammers!
that has nothing to do with anything but the requirements to get a drivers license. there's nothing stopping a 40 year old man without a drivers license from doing exactly the same thing: and neither should there be.
nobody want's to live in a world where nothing works unless you do it "the way it was intended".
Everyone keeps referring to voice services. I'd like to know how this would impact Google Navigation, which requires a constant connection. Sure, you can just refuse voice channels, but then you are back to people looking at their phones using data.
We'll just have people leaning out the window using their phone.
Or placing the antenna on top of the car that plugs in inside the car.
So how will this affect OnStar? Will people who pay for the privilege of a sanctioned in-car service be treated better, or will [millions|thousands|how many people actually use OnStar really?] of customers be SOL with some pricey equipment taking up valuable dash space in their car? What about people who need to use cell service for emergencies? How about all those signs on the freeway for 713-CALL-MAP to call the HPD motorist assistance (or whatever it might be for your)? What about people who stop on the side of the road to call AAA, will their phones cut out every time a car passes? Will these scramblers stop satellite phones (if not, I know where I'd be throwing some investment money...)? How about in Taxis? I'd say every other taxi I get into in NYC, the guy is on the cell-phone, but I find the taxis to be some of the better drivers in NYC... And if we put scramblers in to keep them safe, what about passengers? And what about passengers in normal cars? How is it any less distracting to a driver to have a passenger on the phone than to have a passenger *they're in a conversation with*! What about when people believe they're being followed, or see a drunk driver driving down the freeway? Do we make them pull over to the side, stop, and turn off their engine before they call in to report it?
And how does this "prevent distracted driving"? Does this prevent people from taking off or putting on clothes behind the steering wheel? Or eating? Or putting on makeup? Or shaving? Or rummaging around in the backseat? Or looking at the pretty scenery off to the side? Or singing/dancing along to the radio (with/without other passengers)? Or fiddling with the radio/cd player/climate control/navigation system? Or yelling at their kid in the backseat? Or yelling at the driver in the next lane knowing he won't ever hear? Or from being tired (that Mythbusters test was pretty neat to watch)? Or from repeating the important lines for the presentation they're about to give? Or from a million other things that people do and are equally as distracting as using a cell-phone?
If Ray LaHood thinks cell-phone scramblers are a reasonable approach to automotive safety, he has no business being the Secretary of Transportation. Simple as that.
Although, to be fair he also said "people need to have personal responsibility" (I'd paste the actual quote, but /. still can't handle copy/paste in Google Chrome), so hopefully he'll focus on that. I'll reserve judgement for something more decisive than a conversation on "Morning Joe". (Really? The best argument the co-host could come up with for why the driving age should be raised is that her kid was about to start driving? Maybe if she spent time teaching her kid how to drive instead of goading politicians into making stupid statements she wouldn't be so scared...oh, right, "personal responsibility"...)
Thanks, nanny-stater. What's next, you'll make it illegal for 16 year old girls to give hummers to their dad's friends, too?!
Over the years, my wife and I have called in several cars on the highway driven by folk who were unable to keep a lane, swerving all over the place, etc. Could the root cause have been a cell phone? Sure.. or drugs, alcohol, tiredness, conjugal activities, etc. No matter what the root cause of the bad operation, it was kind of useful to be able to call in these operators... hopefully, before they could kill someone.
While I'm at conspiracy theories, how about the green-mail angle? That is, dangle something draconian in front of the telecommunications providers in the hope that they donate generously to make the problem go away?
I'd like to think that the courts would strike this one down on the premise that the common good done by cell phone in moving cars outweighs the dangers... otherwise, we might as well have mandatory breathalyzers, "awakeness-monitors", and other nanny-state paraphernalia embedded in our cars, bicycles, segways, etc. Oh, wait, I should stop before Mr. LaHood gets all lathered up...
big brother is becoming far too intrusive, texting is one thing but the voice communication is a whole different story. i would favor mandatory hands free devices for sure because holding the handset up to your ear can be a significant distraction. But talking to someone in the car or out of the car is NOT! If they want to save innocent lives outlaw ciggarette smoking in buildings where children must breathe the air. Or outlaw putting on makeup on your way to work while driving. i have seen several women putting on makeup cause accidents including one that hit ME! So what's next, must we all wear gags while driving so we cannot talk to our passengers? When will the American public say enough is enough? I have had enough of my government telling me what is safe and what is not, what to do and what not to do.
I used to be a big pothead years back, my wife forced me to quit as she feared I would get caught with my stash and have to go to jail. I have gotten so drunk that had alcohol poisning and nearly died after my buddys bachelor party. I smoked bud day and night like cowboys smoke marlboros. The worst thing that happend to me from smoking pot is that it took me 5 years to get my bachelors degree instead of 4. When will people wake up an realize that these old fuddy duddies in our government agencies don't always know whats best for us?
Can we create a device that will jam idiot congress critters and government bureaucrats? I'll buy two please.
Nice try, I just cut the cord to the scrambling transmitter, then re-engineered it to broadcast MP3s to my regular local, car radio. NEXT!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Imagine every car has a scrambler, but by default is turned off. The only time it's activated is when the police send a signal, and of course they would only do that when they see someone driving recklessly, or there is a lot of traffic congestion requiring better attention from drivers, or...
Until the police figure out that by killing cell phones they also prevent most people from recording their illegal behavior, and it's back to the days of cops murdering people with impunity.
Only as long as the cell phone can be used while the car is stopped. I'm all for scrambling while the car is moving, but I don't feel it safe or necessary to have to exit the car to call 911, saying some guy is trying to carjack me, or my wife is having an allergic reaction...
and all the stupidity that comes with him/her because we know its the cell phone that is driving the car.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Where does it end? They should make a law that requires vehicles to drive themselves and all of these laws (DUI, while driving, etc) will go away...
Some people can drive AND use a cell phone safely. Some people cannot. In fact, some people cannot drive without being distracted by a story on the news radio station, or because they are fiddling with the radio controls, or turning around to yell at their kids in the back seat. I know a person who drove into a telephone pole while doing so. I once saw a guy driving a car (with a famous insurance company's name prominent on the side) who had a laptop in the passenger seat, and kept turning to type on the computer while driving!!! This kind of legislation will never fix the problem. Some people will always find something to fiddle with, become distracted, and kill themselves and/or someone else. Unless we ban cars and go 100% mass transportation :-)
disable our brains!!!!!
OnStar no longer functions. ... (People have self-rescued via cell phone from vehicles.)
After the accident I am trapped in my car and can't call for assistance. Really hurts when black ice happens and I slide down the embankment. I'll slowly die without phone service.
I park next to an emergency services vehicle and kill his cell call back to the station. Some smaller jurisdictions rely on mobile phones.
My little girl is trapped in the car trunk of her kidnapper. She can't phone out
Just saying this needs to be well thought out...
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
It seems to me that this will result in a large number of extra miles driven by people who would have otherwise changed their driving plans on the fly if they had a working cell phone. People will instead drive someplace, find out plans have changed and that they need to drive someplace else, and then drive there. Those extra miles driven are going to be cause for much extra traffic, traffic accidents, and traffic fatalities.
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
I have met people who do the following things while driving long distances:
-Nalance their checkbook
-Read the newspaper
-Read novels
Sometimes people are just going to choose to do stupid and dangerous things. We can't possibly try and prevent every single one by making it a law.
This will only be in new vehicles. The value/price/cost of used vehicles may go up as a result of this, along with the financial incentive for people to make available parts and servicing for them.
In the event that I get a new car with this issue, however, I will use triangulation and a radio spectrometer and I will eliminate that anti-feature from my vehicle.
Since in the name of safety there once again is a presumption of guilt, why not include breathalyzer locks in all cars? The tech exists and is used at court order already, and alcohol-related auto deaths are more numerous than phone-related auto deaths. Surely that would save more lives?
How about driving while tired? That's unquestionably a killer, and a common one. EEGs can detect when someone is sleepy. Why not an interlock for the headband you'd be required to wear?
How about driving into neighborhoods in which prostitution and illegal drug activity is rampant? GPS tracker + ignition kill-switch, easy. Heck, you could also use this for enforcing restraining orders and RSO exclusion-zones. Y'know. For the children. Think of the children.
Are we sure this is the Secretary of Transportation? Sounds a lot more like TSA to me.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Wouldn't this have a significant impact on signal quality near busy roads? Especially in urban areas where every road is a busy road?
I've been rear ended by a Ford Expedition at a red light when the 30 year old woman was not distracted (Who then blamed me for apparently stopping at a red light). As well as several other times, fear stupid people not just people on their cell phone which includes not stupid uses and not stupid people. Blaming 'cell phones' or anything else for stupidity is silly.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
This idiot LaHood is some kind of jackbooted nazi thug wannabe. He's proven himself to be a fucking tyrant just by spouting off such nonsense.
He's obviously forgotten that as a government official, he's supposed to be a SERVANT of the people, not a BOSS over the people.
He's probably the kind of asshat who also thinks that all crimes should be felonies and there should also only be one punishment: death.
Bring back the practice of public tar & feathering. We need it ASAP.
She'll find enough distractions without her cell phone, like you pointed out already, and therefore will still run you over. I was run over by an old man. Perfect weather, within city limits. Didn't even break. Only got stopped by a big city bus he hit next. Claimed he didn't see me, standing still on the middle of the road on a bright yellow motorcycle, lights on So don't think this phone jammer will make much of a difference.
This is fucking stupid and is never going to happen.
Why could he not shift to neutral and let the car slow down?
He was going downhill.
I take it you've never driven on a mountain.
Putting moderation advice in your
Actually, the signs are severely limited. The views are great.
My simple proposal: in the event of an accident, check the drivers' phone records. If the phone was active some threshold before the accident (1 minute?) they are automatically at fault, and appropriately charged.
If both phone active, then both drivers charged.
Obvious question here is where do the auto insurance companies stand?
Why not have an increased fine for people who have an accident while on the phone? We don't ban alcohol but give extra bonus penalties to drunk drivers. Should be treated the same. I can handle going to a bar and not getting into a car until I'm detoxed. Those that can't get nailed by the cops.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
actually, passengers are more likely to be quiet in areas of high danger (intersections etc) and are actually capable of pointing out possible hazards that the driver himself may not notice at first. You get neither of these with cellphones.
Seriously.
Seriously, when they started scrambling sat tv. The descramblers crawled out of the wood work. So how much do you think it will cost for a hidden kill switch for descrambler? It needs to be a hidden kill switch so that if you are pulled over, you can point to your inactive cell phone and shrug. Lastly, I am sure they wont pass the cost of the cell phone blocker on to the customer. That will simply be donated by the WeBocCells company and installed as a public service...
I followed the link and your risk of accident increases 4x while TEXTING. That's a lot more involved than merely talking. I didn't click on that link to watch that video, but my first question would be, "4x more likely than what?" I could easily say that you're 1000x more likely to get into an accident while on the cellphone compared to me (sitting in my car in my parking space).
I have made two or three 911 calls from my car over the years. Would I have had to pull over -- if that's even possible -- and turn off my car to call now? Would someone on the sidewalk nearby be able to make calls with nearby cars streaming by at rush hour?
If LaHood thinks a passenger talking on a cellphone is distracting to a driver, then isn't a driver talking to a passenger just as, or even more, distracting? I say let's ban all driver communication, both intra and extra vehicular. This will of course require a redesign of all cars, perhaps a driver "cockpit" like a commercial airplane.
Actually, there is some research suggesting that there is a difference between a hands-free phone conversation and a conversation with someone in the car. The difference is that passengers can often see what sort of a situation one is in, and they often pause conversing when they notice that the situation is tricky. It is also less awkward for the driver to pause talking with passengers in the car than over the phone. Moreover, passengers can convey additional information to the driver.
ha ha ha.
"I am a teenage girl... .... .. Allstate insurance".
Are you also a victim of watching too much MSNBC and the stupid Allstate commercials because of it?
You can't handle the truth.
You want to fix car accidents, invest in trains, nuff said.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Banning cigarettes would save more lives than banning cell phones!
Taking all the cars off the road will save lives as well. Is he all for that, too?
I think La Hood's idea is whacko. However, on the phone you are at a disadvantage versus talking to someone (adult) in the car: the person in the car is also probably aware of traffic. I know I've certainly had a passenger call out something I didn't see, though I'm nearly certain that if they had not been in the car in the first place, I would've seen the same thing: the distraction of the passenger was, to some extent, cancelled out by their extra set of eyes.
As long as it didn't require me to do anything (I'm not blowing into a breathalyzer).
I've known any number of alcoholics, and they all kid themselves as to how much alcohol they can tolerate and as to how much they've actually had to drink.
One person I was staying with called me from his DUI lawyer's office and had me open the report that was mailed to him by the State Police and read the blood alcohol numbers to him. The slope in the numbers over time (they do more than one test if you're arrested) proved that he had been drinking just before he got into the car - it showed that he was still absorbing alcohol faster than he was metabolizing it. He had convinced himself that he just had a leftover buzz from the previous night's binge.
He still drives, even without a license. Normally, cars registered to DUI offenders get pulled over all the time, just so the cops can check on them. Turns out that it's trivial to register a business name, buy a car and have it titled to the "business". It stops the random traffic stops, and the guy gets away with driving until he breaks some traffic law or kills someone.
There are way more drunks on the road than anyone could ever guess.
But, I'm not blowing into a breathalyzer, and if it requires skin contact to measure BAC, that's not going to work either. In winter my gloves don't come off until I get to where I'm going.
But, I'm really suspicious of a lot of drivers on the road these days. If someone else's driving seems a little off, try to get them in front of you, rather than behind you. I've called in more than a few DUIs over the past few years.
Putting moderation advice in your
Will this "technology" also disable pagers worn by emergency workers, doctors etc, which also work on the cellular networks? If not, how exactly? If yes, then how will emergency responders, doctors etc be notified that their services are requested while they are driving?
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Cell phone use in an automobile has it uses. If I've been in an accident, or witnessed one I would want to be able to call the police to help. Same to report junk on the road, a fire, if I spotted a wanted car (amber alert) etc. This would throw out the good with the bad. Cell phones are not the only distraction. How about a device to melt down lipstick being applied while driving? Changing radio stations, talking to passengers, crying babies, reading a map? Meanwhile talking on your CB or Ham radio isn't covered by any anti cell phone laws (they are different services) and considered a public service. Are you going to tell the bus drivers, taxi cab drivers, firemen and police they can't use their radios in the vechiles? So long as you do not need to take your eyes off the road (and a hands free phone helps) TALKING on a phone (not dialing unless the phone has voice command) shouldn't be a problem for someone that has a good driving record. I'd prohibit cell phone use by anybody that has less than a clean driving record. They also should not be allowed to have any passengers in the car with them.
I will be no more distracted than any other driver who is talking to his passengers.
Actually, this is not true.
The problem with talking and driving is NOT the hands free aspect. The real problem is with the way the human mind works. When you are talking to someone who is physically in your car, your brain does not need to do work to "see" that person. You don't have to imagine what they are doing or how they are looking because they are sitting right next to you. This is true EVEN IF YOU NEVER LOOK AT THEM. When you are on a call phone, part of your brain responsible for visual aspects (AKA looking at the road) is now occupied. That's why you get the "blind driver effect" in which people who have been talking on their phones don't remember driving from point A to point B (or they blackout on parts). So, bluetooth does not do anything to help you overcome this problem.
The other aspect of talking on a cell phone is that the other person can't see what is going on around you. If someone is in a car with you, they can see that traffic has come to a screeching halt, or that someone has cut you off, or whatever the case may be and they can appropriately shut up or say something - fully understanding that you need to focus. The same doesn't happen on the cell phone.
Now, don't get me wrong - I want the government to be hands off. I especially dislike it when they try to solve problems with technology that are better solved through other means. And, other /. posts have pointed out the various areas where there could be problems with having this type of system in place. But, it is very far from the truth to say that bluetooth is a "better alternative."
As others have pointed out, the real solution is using common sense and actually following it.
Applying an over sweeping remedy to an issue that is really just an issue within his limited domain. Nothing to see here, please mute your phones so as not to alert the Federation of Lawn Mowers and their equally earnest effort to ban rocks in lawns...
Make it illegal to talk on the phone while driving then. She'll get a ticket and learn to stop or pay the price. If she hits someone she's liable. You're advocating for the government to preemptively take away our rights even if some of those rights aren't harmful in any way (how many times is it helpful to have a passenger call someone en route). Life is risky every time you walk out the door. Where do you draw the line at taking away people's freedoms to protect yourself? Consider how often pedestrians are hit by motorists, you have to draw the line somewhere. The best way to respect people's rights is to make actual wrong doing illegal. I think anything else is selfish.
Sure there are plenty of ways to distract yourself while driving, but as a motorcyclist it's alarming to see just how prevalent texting and talking on the phone while driving is. Can anybody honestly say that other distractions are more prevalent, or that adjusting the stereo takes more of your attention than composing a message on a tiny screen? The statistics tell us that it's not a victimless crime.
There's no reason why this technology can't be implemented safely and allow for emergency calls.
Getting caught for DWT usually results in a slap on the wrist. Automatic suspension of license for the first offense. Driving is a privilege.
Looks like the recession is due for one more person to lose their job. Instead of creating laws & regulations on public safety based on research and reasoned debate over what's truly in the public's best interest we've got a zealot dictating what should and shouldn't be based on nothing more than personal belief. He's got to go.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
it impossible to use a mobile phone while in a car can save lives,
Just not the lives of anybody trapped in a car and slowly dying because he cannot call anybody, that is.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
It's not just politicians who would oppose this kind of law. Many, many of my peers - even those who believe such a law would be beneficial and admit they see the danger in cell phone use while driving - openly state they would vote against that kind of law because they like talking (and texting) while driving. There were only like 2 or 3 who said otherwise, and that was only because they didn't drive. I wish I had a more formal citation, but it was about a week's topic in a psychology class; the class was also over a year ago so I lost the handout, so take it with a grain of salt.
I support the idea of disabling cell phones from working once they detect they are moving at, say, greater than 5 MPH. Certain SIM cards could be provided for people who had a demonstrated need to be exempt from this.
It's really not a big hardship if you need to use the phone or send a text to simply pull over.
But this will never happen, and here is why: Lobbyists for the cellular companies will kill it. I would wager that a huge number of cell phone minutes are consumed while people use their phone while driving. Cut that off and suddenly you take a huge bite out of cell phone profits.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
unless you used a sex change ray to make her a woman that accident was clearly not your fault
Cameras in cars that record around us. With a press of a button we can upload the film to the local police if a person near us is causing a dangerous situation by weaving through traffic erratically, or right after an accident or if someone is talking on the phone, watching a movie, falling asleep or putting on makeup while driving. Of course, I propose a voluntary setup, and the government is only interested in something that they can force on us.
Simply make all cell phones stop functioning if they detect that they are moving faster than a certain speed. Many phones already contain accelerometers that could be used for this. If not, GPS or cellular triangulation could work, also.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
They have cars that can drive and park themselves.... why not build cars that can use this technology to avert collisions and correct mistakes made by humans.
Likewise, this system should have a limit that finds a safe place to park and shut down if it finds itself correcting a lot.... face it, getting shitty drivers off the road is as important as getting distracted drivers off the road.
Want to ban something? Ban shitty drivers, and do something about it. If the phone, cigarettes, drunkenness, newspaper, knitting needles, public displays of affection affect your driving (or mine!) you need to get off the road and make it safe for others.
Make America grate again!
Maybe they should just subject drivers to being pulled over and given an enhanced pat down and having their vehicle searched at random to make sure they don't have any potential distracting devices anywhere but locked in the boot.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
And I'm for banning handheld cellphone use by drivers. But blocking ALL mobile devices?? that means I wouldn't be able to use my iPad (as passenger) to get directions.. Or call for directions (as passenger) or well so many other "useful" things that a passenger can do with mobile access..
Then of course there is the "what if it goes awry" scenario and prevents me from calling help in a crash.
Another zealot not thinking things though.
But this is what the Secretary actually said.
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/11/setting-the-record-straight.html
How can you disable the driver's ability to use a phone, without disabling passengers' ability too?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
To her it was somehow my fault, though I've never been hit by someone who says 'Sorry, that was my fault'. When I got out and looked at the space where my cars trunk used to be, she got all mad at me and accused me of trying to harm her kids by being in her way I guess? I should have known not to be on the same road as her, so she could have run the red light and been fucked up by 3 or four cars in the intersection instead and then when she wakes up in the coma in the hospital she can bitch about how it wasn't her fault those cars shouldn't have been there. She couldn't even be bothered to wait until the police I called came or leave contact information for like her insurance.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
I have a windshield mount for my Droid and plug it in to the auxiliary audio port of my car which makes it work quite nicely hands-free because the mount turns on the speaker-phone. So there's a few people out there who do stupid things like texting while driving and now we just have to shut down cell phone use in cars period? Even for passengers? Give me a break. This will never happen, there will simply be too much public outrage over it....I hope.
...to do this is to make your cell phone act as a key to the vehicle. When the car is in anything except "P", then the cell phone cannot make or receive calls and automatically goes to voicemail. Even this system needs to be well thought out to endure emergency action. A modern car probably knows when it has crashed, when it is stopped, etc. The car should be able to active/deactivate the phone based on these factors.
Now I won't feel guilty for not calling an ambulance when I see a horrible wreck where the children are flying around the highway and the fire and ack!
I won't be able to!
I guess no more calling 911 to report other accidents, even if you're a passenger in the car.
Also, often I'll be driving while my passenger uses the phone. Nothing wrong with that.
Would be useful. In particular the real questions isn't how the brain processes it. The question is this: Have cellphones lead to a higher incidence of accidents? I don't care if people on cellphones get in accidents sometimes, or even that they get in accidents more than people who are 100% focused. What I care about is have accidents gone up, and is this rise attributable to cellphones? Lots of shit causes accidents, including just plain ole' inattention. Unless this has a statistically significant effect on the number of accidents, I do not see it being worth all the panic.
It looks like LaHood is now denying on the blog ever having made that comment:
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/11/setting-the-record-straight.html#more
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
I've never really thought about hard hacking my car before.
Now I might have a reason?
Sidenote: This would also kill On-Star and similar products.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
So this would mean my wife cannot phone her friends and relatives while I am driving? What?
Nice, but I don't get MSNBC. However, those are funny commercials IMO.
Make it illegal to talk on the phone while driving then. She'll get a ticket and learn to stop or pay the price. If she hits someone she's liable. You're advocating for the government to preemptively take away our rights even if some of those rights aren't harmful in any way (how many times is it helpful to have a passenger call someone en route). Life is risky every time you walk out the door. Where do you draw the line at taking away people's freedoms to protect yourself? Consider how often pedestrians are hit by motorists, you have to draw the line somewhere. The best way to respect people's rights is to make actual wrong doing illegal. I think anything else is selfish. It's been 40 minutes and my comment hasn't appeared so I'm reposting it...
They also have to ban
- eating
- drinking
- smoking
- talking to passengers
- listening to the radio
- etc.
Yeah, it's bad using the phone while driving.
But this is completely out of proportion.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition (laws banning behavior that puts others lives at risk) is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence (DRM'd homes as the consequence of such laws).
When we've tried calling 911 to report a drunk driver (freeway near San Francisco)
nobody answers the phone. Called local police (from car) and they said
"Yes, that is true, no one answers, and 911 is the only number we have to call the CHP."
Studies have found that hands free doesn't actually help, it's talking to someone who's not present with you that's the problem.
I was riding shotgun in my girlfriend's dad's 2010 Camry, trying to get his cellphone to auto-connect with the radio. Bluetooth was being sketchy as common, and Toyota has the most hideously user unfriendly menu and button layout I have ever seen in an OEM radio product. I'd be embarrassed if I was involved in designing that tripe.
I tried deleting the pairing information, and when I went to repair the phone, the radio said "This feature is disabled with the vehicle in motion." I nearly hit the roof, it just added insult to injury.
After that, I vowed I would not buy a Toyota product, or encourage anyone else to, unless their user interface and legal team did an about face. I was going to write them a love note saying my mother was in the market for a new car, and after what happened I encouraged her not to. But the next month, Toyota's little PR meltdown occurred, and I figured my letter, already unlikely to be read by anyone who mattered, would now just hit the circular file.
While he's at it, let's get technology to prevent all conversation between the driver and passengers. Because after all, a driver talking to other people is distracted.
Then we can take out all car radios. Listening to music or talk is distracting to drivers, so it should be banned.
For an obvious follow-up, we can ban all road signs and billboards. People can get distracted looking at them. (wait, I don't hate the billboard thing so much)
Or maybe we can do this instead. Simply ban all handheld phone use without a handsfree device. Make Bluetooth and/or a aux jack a standard part of all car radios going forward, instead of part of a big-dollar premium upgrade with your nav system. Mandate handsfree technology be used by all drivers. And ban texting/email by drivers, period. That I can get behind. The rest of it's just ridiculous.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
lets see them block cell phones in prisons first before they attack law abiding citizens.
Auto accident rates per capita have been dropping year to year for the last 30 years, as cell phone use increases exponentially.
What problem are we solving exactly,...
I am about to buy a stereo unit for my car with bluetooth phone receiver. The phone will connect wirelessly to my stereo allow me to be on the cell phone completely hands free. I will be no more distracted than any other driver who is talking to his passengers. How is this dangerous, and why does the government want to disable this tech innovation?
It is very different because the passengers in the car realize when you are in a tight traffic situation and quit yammering until the situation clears up.
The person on the phone just keeps talking, not realizing that you may be in a near-death situation.
--
codk
Why are you posting? Shouldn't you be creating more /. accounts? We need to get to 2M users before New Year's.
P.S. YOU ARE NOTHING
There are the few who can legitimately multitask, there are the many who are smart and can prioritize a conversation and driving, and there are the dimwits who shouldn't be driving in the first place. I can't multitask at 100% myself so I prioritize talking on the phone the same as talking to a friend in the seat next to me. If they are going to jam cell phones from cars, they might as well jam passengers and while we're at it, we can ban human drivers to guarantee no accidents.
Some states have signs like this. I have called 911 while driving and the police arrived and stopped an impaired driver. (unfortunatly he started up again and caused a fatal headon.)
I have never had an cell phone related issue when driving. All the studies I have seen related to cell phones have distorted things by making people do math, repeat patterns or speed runs through cones. They never give the person the option to stop talking. If I am driving on ice or turning or in traffic or... I stay off the phone. However on the interstate with no one within a mile of me I still keep it brief or pull over.
How about US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood getting his ass fired. He's way too full of himself and the power he thinks he has.
Love it. The land of the free, what a joke.
People view driving their vehicle as a right, and take no responsibility. Driving is both a right and a responsibility and people must have their right taken from them if they can't use it responsibly.
Here's a brilliant example. Just recently, only about 100km from where I live, a man killed a motorcyclist because he was driving at 40km/h over the limit with a blood alcohol level of 0.14. This man had 5 prior DUI convictions.. yet he was still legally allowed to drive. The end result was inevitable and he shouldn't have been on the road ... ever again. He shirked his responsibility of driving safely, and his right to drive should have been removed .. because he couldn't drive responsibly.
The same can be said for driving using mobile phones, laptops, portable televisions etc. etc. etc. Get caught shirking your responsibility of care by using a mobile phone while driving? 1st offense, fined. 2nd offense, fined more. 3rd offense, loss of license. 4th offense, longer loss of license. 5th offense, your not driving anymore.
Anyone who needs to hang onto their license for work, convenience, health or personal reasons? Behave responsibly or it's gone. No excuses, no regrets. Want to drive? You've got to do your best to drive safely. Don't implement extreme technical measures to save innocent people from stupidity.. just remove the stupidity.
If the technology is ok why not but they should make sure that when the car is stopped it would be allowed. With governments you never know what is behind is it really to save lives or another political cuisine.
Want to stop this? Simply require it be justified on a monetary basis. The government should be made to answer these questions: 1. How much do automobile accidents cost the nation overall? 2. What fraction of that is do to distracted driving? 3. What fraction of distracted driving is due to cell phones/music players? 4. How much is it going to cost to implement a cell phone suppressor in cars? 5. How much revenue will corporations lose when their road warriors can't call from their cars? Calculate (1)*(2)*(3) - (4) - (5). If the answer is less than zero, you are a fiscally irresponsible government agency. That's going to go over very well with the 2011-12 Congress.
-- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
You know how some places have laws to not allow talking or texting while driving, but drivers are still doing it and maybe even causing more accidents because they have to do it secretly, like texting from their lap? If phones no longer work inside the car, I can see people driving with their right hand on the wheel while leaning their head out the window with so that the phone is outside the car. I bet it would happen.
Why not include certain distractions as part of the driving test itself.
1. Dealing with a cell phone while driving.
-- When entering the vehicle putting the cell phone in a place that is reachable.
-- Driving and dealing with a ringing cell phone. Maybe you want to let it ring while merging on the freeway.
-- Talking your cell phone while driving (hands free and handset to head situations).
-- Dealing with text messaging.
2. Driving with McD.
-- How can eat my big mac while driving.
3. Sex while driving. Planning your climax...
4. Book reports while driving.
5. Driving and makeup.
6. Maps and you. How to use a map while driving.
7. GPS instructions and you. Note that your GPS can't see the road (yet). Don't take that hard right turn before looking.
Right now we test kids in unrealistic driving situations. Give them the freaking skills to deal with distractions while on the road. Sometimes you need to pull over, sometimes you need to let the damn phone ring, sometimes you really need to ignore that text messages (it will be there at the next stop light.)
In order to pass you need to be able to demonstrate that you can behave appropriately when distractions occur. If you answer the phone in a school zone, while merging and so on, instant fail. When the ketchup coated pickle ends up on your shirt, let it go until you can stop.
Basically teach people to live and drive in the real world.
Just what we need! If I see a crime or injury of another I can not call for help. If I wreck and am pinned in a car I can not call to save my own life. I wonder how many lives might be saved if we mandate a working phone be in every car at all times.
Are they really proposing to give everyone their own cell phone jammer? If they make it easy enough to take out of the car, I might actually start going to the movie theater again. I'm sure this couldn't possibly be used for anything nefarious.
I guess we should be able to drink and drive, and only get punished if we get in an accident?
Because he said "you have to have people take personal responsibility " and " there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving" ? That's idiotic?
Best Slashdot Co
Because they are getting paid by a lobbiest. They don't really GAF about saving lives.
It's not yet even illegal in my state to talk on a cell phone in the car.
86ing the phones is not going to eliminate the problem, ditching the human control system would be a much better option! Anyone want to go for a pub crawl and have Google drive us home? http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/googles-self-driving-car/5445/
So how far away from my car do I have to be for my phone to work? If the car is off, is the phone disabled? If it is parked outside my office window does it work? If my wife starts the car and drives past me does it work? etc. etc.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Jack Bauer without the ability for Cloe to send the codes to shutdown the entire country's nuclear launch capability to Jack's PDA while driving through the Holland Tunnel? I don't think so! Jack would show up at LaHood's house and shove that jammer up his ass.
All of which are at least as distracting and all of which I see regularly on my commute. I left blow jobs off the list, because they are arguably already illegal in public.
Realistically, none of it is going to happen.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Can auto-pilot car does better?
This suggests that drunk / otherwise lame drivers get caught and punished. Unfortunately, this is not true. For example, my hitter got away with a penalty of a few hundred euros. Quite a contrast with the € 85.000+ damage he made. Not to mention wrecking my back.
If the FCC doesn't stop, the police and FBI will. The GPS trackers that they use to invade our privacy without warrants would stop working.
Obama should worry about fixing our economy, stopping wasteful military spending, and getting our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, he seems to be instructing TSA agents to stick their fingers up our butts and mess with our cell phones. At some point, the people who voted for him may just not give a damn anymore at the next election.
If you scramble the cell frequencies, that effectively means no networking capabilities for in-vehicle systems. These all go over SMS, GPRS, 3G+ packet data, and for really old crap, the voice channel with a wonky modem. So that means...
I respect the paranoia about privacy issues, and to a lesser extent, the concern over safety. But this is a big baby getting thrown out with the bathwater. Cars sold in America will suck.
Just curious, how many of us use a cell phone while driving (regularly, not for emergencies), so they are in fact against the idea itself, not the possible shortcomings of the implementation?
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
It's great that all you drivers are so concerned about being able to help out others in distress. Well then would it f**king kill you to pull over, stop the car, and get out to make the call?! I guarantee it won't be jammed.
...would accomplish much the same thing as this jamming technology.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
whatabout navigation apps? :\
SO,
How long until the driver is in a government mandated cone of silence?
After all the person in the passenger seat is as much a distraction as a cellphone and actually is probally a worse distraction as you don't have an urge to LOOK at the person you are talking to on a phone.
What about the kids making noise and being annoying in the back seat? Perhaps the government should mandate sleeping gas for them so they aren't a distraction to the driver.
The only thing laws against idiocy do is cause even more creative idiocy.
Wait... her friends are giving her dad a hummer? Yeah, that could be distracting.
I have mod points... but I can't figure out how to mod TFS as "Trolling" or "Flamebait".
that's not the demographic who is committing the sin of running people over and crashing into things - males age 18-25 are.
What about the passengers?
What if its raining, snowing, hurricaning... tornadoing...
What fuck are these idiots thinking. Can we erase them from existence already?
Never going to happen.
Any further arguing over the issue is lunacy.
Conservatives here love to rant about KDawson being a hack of an editor, with a liberal bias. Meanwhile this conservative piece of garbage was only up here for about 20 minutes before someone pointed out that it is total bullshit. Yet I don't see an outpouring of people calling for Timothy's head...
I guess every once in a while we see the true bias of slashdot; I'll give you a clue and tell you it sure as hell isn't liberal.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And...is trapped in a car and needs to call for help. Cause if that happens they are officially screwed.
I'm pretty sure the receivers can directly measure doppler on the GPS signal. The error in receiver position won't screw that measurement up to any appreciable degree, and the accuracy is such that even if they bother using the derivative of position in their velocity solution it wouldn't be weighted enough to cause a problem (especially since the time duration of the dropout would be factored in). That said, its a stupid idea to disable cell phones under any conditions. I'm not even sure I like the idea of making talking of a phone illegal while driving. Yes its dangerous, even with an earpiece it almost as dangerous according to studies. Some studies show that simply having a passenger talking on a phone is just as bad. Making it illegal to communicate has free speech implications, and that is not something to be taken lightly.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
The idea of scrambling cell signals in cars is wishful thinking by a cellphone hater. Here are just a few of the many reasons why it will not happen any time soon:
1. Not that easy to do cheaply.
2. Older cars are not going to banned or force retro-fitted, creating an obvious problem.
3. Not everyone in a car is the driver.
4. Not all drivers allow themselves to be dangerously distracted by cellphones, or use them while on the road.
5. Pressure against such a measure from phone, bluetooth accessory and car manufacturers would be huge.
6. Cellphones, OnStar, etc., are very useful for drivers who have been hurt in accidents.
7. Not gonna happen in the good ol' U S of A. It's just not. Freedom! 'Merica.
8. They haven't found a way to take our guns yet, and the phone is more powerful. Yee-haa!!!
9. There are limits to how much safety we want, when it infringes on our freedoms. Witness all the 300+ hp cars we buy. We don't need to do 0-60mph in 4 seconds, but we insist on it. Merica!
10. there are too many other potential distraction you could never ban to focus so severely on this one. Imagine trying to ban eating, smoking, fiddling with the stereo, talking, and tending to children. Right...
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
"I will be no more distracted than any other driver who is talking to his passengers."
Your assumption is wrong. Passengers in the vehicle will stop talking or pause the conversation during periods requiring more driver concentration. People on the end of a phone have no idea what is happening in and around the car, and so cause driver distraction indiscriminately.
There are simply too many legitimate uses for cell phones in cars for a blanket ban to be a good idea. Jamming devices in people's cars would prevent even calls to 911. People use cell phones to call 911 all the time, in between traffic accidents, and people witnessing crimes. Both situations are extremely time-critical: reporting them immediately may mean the difference between life and death. I believe there have been studies showing an improved response time to incidents, and a corresponding drop in crime rates and accident fatalities, due to cell phones.
But even aside from this, cell phones are simply too useful a tool. Are you lost? Is your car having trouble? Does someone need to reach you because your house is on fire? Merely because a tool can be abused does not mean the proper response is to completely ban the tool. Look at drunken driving. Drunken driving fatalities have been dramatically reduced in the past ten years, and alcohol wasn't banned. In fact, even though similar technology to what's proposed in the article already exists for alcohol (ignition locks hooked up to a breathalyzer), we have not mandated these be installed in every vehicle. In fact, I believe there have been cases where people convicted of drunken driving have successfully fought to get the ignition lock removed because it was not working properly and prevented them from going to work.
Instead, after someone gets in trouble for drunken driving, the penalties they face are significantly enhanced compared to the same offense committed while sober. Driving priviliges are revoked more readily. Ignition lock technology can be installed after the specific driver has demonstrated that a problem exists. I don't deny talking on the phone while driving can be the cause of much mayhem, but surely jamming devices are not the answer of first resort.
So, I really can dial 911 after they pry the cell phone out of my cold dead hands. Thinking tho that to be able to dial 911 with cold dead hands, the cell phone would need to be able to deliver a t-virus injection when it detects a white knuckle state.
The perfect timing of an article that was sure to get the tech community up in arms, at the same time as another article in which we should really care about gets buried? (The net kill switch article: fyi)
This will just encourage darknets, and private IP networks. I'll tell ya what, the first thing I'll be asked if my CIO finds out about this legislation is: "How can we maintain our extranational obligations after this goes into place?"
And for some reason, in the nightmare I've had surrounding this passing, the phone companies cheer every time it gets passed since their under no obligation to maintain the kill-switch on private (much more expensive) circuits. More private IP networks will emerge running on carrier backbones, but not on the "intarweb" so businesses can be assured no populist monkey pulls the plug on their business.
The answer may be data centers in Mexico along the border and big micro dishes, since the scale and number of businesses buying private IP will eat up most of the existing infrastructure, and satellite is about as useful as a tin can on a string for the bandwidth apetite of youtube watching intarweb monkeys.
There goes a big chunk of ONSTAR's revenue
Why not require in-car bluetooth or docking? I have no problems driving while on a headset. The people I see driving slow, swerving, etc. invariably have a phone up to their ear.
"Just last year, nearly 5,500 people were killed and 500,000 more were injured in distracted driving-related crashes." Funny, he doesn't say how many were cellphone related. I wonder if he's given any thought to how many accidents will be caused by drivers trying to pull over to take a call before the call goes to voice mail.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
My right to free speech includes updating my blog from the passenger seat.
But seriously why would anyone think it is OK to operate a nanny state?
Also there was a test almost 20 years ago about cellular phones and driving.
"Research has shown that use of cellular phones does not interfere significantly with the ability to control an automobile except among the elderly, where potentially dangerous lane excursions can occur."
But there are other studies, one shows hands-free doesn't help with the distraction part of the equation:
"The increased cognitive workload involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk."
Is chatting with your passengers a distraction too? I think logically, yes. It's possibly worse than using a cellphone because you might be tempted to make eye contact with your passenger, which would be even more dangerous. (I think we have all done this)
I see two choices, we either accept the small but significant loss of life that comes with civilians driving cars, or ban all private car ownership and leave it to the professionals.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's a broadly-known concept that one cannot correct a societal problem with a technological solution. The societal problem must be corrected first. In this case, it's personal responsibility, or rather lack thereof when it comes to dangerous/stupid driving behavior. No amount of technical gadgetry is going to help people take personal responsibility to drive better. This is all just attacking the symptoms, but not addressing the root of the problem.
Driving is not viewed as a privilege that is prestigious and/or highly valued, therefore people treat it as a low-valued commodity and have little incentive to take personal responsibility to retain their privileges. However, if you can make driving privileges more difficult to obtain, people will automatically assign more value to them, and consequently treat them as valued privileges instead of a commodity.
Some ideas to do this could include:
* Much more stringent and frequent driving tests before licenses are issued/renewed
* Massively-increased licens testing fees
* Mandatory driver-training courses for all drivers
* Limited number of licenses issued per year (like H1B visas, hunting licenses, etc already are)
All of these make the driver's license a valued item, not just a commodity that can be had for a $50 fee and a few minutes' wait at the DMV.
I've been hit a number of times, every one the person said it was their fault - either to me or to the cop. There was only one person who didn't realize they erred. She said to the state trooper who responded "I saw him there and changed lanes into him. He should have moved." The trooper wrote that down and her insurance sent me a check within a week. I've gotten "I'm sorry, I didn't see you there" or "Oh fuck, I just hit a Porsche" for the others. That last one was the silliest ever. A fire truck was coming, so I pulled over and stopped. He pulled over and stopped as well. Everyone was watching the fire truck, and he didn't have his foot all the way on the brake and rolled ever so gently into my car. However, the bumper height on a full-size pickup doesn't overlap at all with the bumper on an '87 911. So $3000 later, the 2 mph bump was fixed by his insurance.
Though a guy who tried to illegally pass my sister in a parking lot and misjudged the distance and rammed her from behind didn't take responsibility. And he was a lawyer and managed to get my sister's insurance to pay for it. So there are plenty of jackasses out there. But I've been hit by a few that admitted fault (of the one that denied fault and described the incident in a manner everyone else thought was 100% her fault.
Learn to love Alaska
Exactly. I'd rather see cars all enabled with bluetooth and all phones enabled with bluetooth (and make the pairing easier if not automatic -- I don't care if the car rings for all the passengers too). I'm surprised all new cars and all cellphones don't already have this. ALL new cars.
The problem of drivers being distracted by cell phone use can be resolved by adding autonomous vehicle capabilities to existing cars and trucks.
At present, different car makers sell premium models each with small chunks of the autonomous vehicle control solution. Mercedes has a safe following distance speed control, Toyota advertises a self-parallel parking device.
What we need is a design with a software interface to the vehicle mechanicals (something like an Arduino with a usb port), a plug in sensor with a software interface, a software interface to a vehicle map device, two data radios and a general purpose computer like a Linux netbook running autonomous vehicle control programs.
You glue the whole thing together by making the sensor devices present a software self describing interface. A defined software interface makes it possible to develop and test vehicle control software with simulated inputs.
The control computer is a general purpose device that runs programs for the specific control jobs needed. One program might be "learn my commute to work", Another program might be "Steer and brake while the driver uses the cell phone".
The problem as I see it is to get an open source data and control definition out there before some monopolist locks up the scheme like Microsoft locked up their document export definition.
I can hear the hum of the patent attorneys in the distance... All of this is really obvious right?
http://lessco2essay.blogspot.com/2010/11/proposal-for-autonomous-vehicle.html
Get rid of automatic transmissions and power steering so drivers actually have to use their hands to control the car. Give them something meaningful to do, then perhaps they will finally Hang Up and Drive!
I know, it's just wishful thinking...
That La Hood dude wants to nuke all cell phones while driving - even ones with hands free bluetooth connections
Following that logic - i.e. that talking while driving is distracting ..... .... do we then require people in the passenger seats to wear gags?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Fuck You Ray LaHood
Could we please get a "fascist shitheads" tag?
Thanks much.
Just because the conversations can be evesdropped on, does not mean that the conversations can be understood (use of code). Prisoners can be very creative and their time is effectively free. Also, it costs extra money to do this intercepting, interpretation. Prisons are expensive enough as is.
Oh sure they are completely illegal in the US...
But soon they will be legal in your car, because using a cellphone in a car is just unacceptable.
However they will still not be legal in prisons to prevent prisoners from having illegal contact with the outside.
It's funny that the distracted driving trend is being blamed on the gadgets, when the problem is with driving.
The problem is the modern automobile. Comfortable, silent, automatic everything. Driving is treated like a chore and cars are essentially appliances. Behind all the fake chrome and hideous glossy plastic buttons is several tons of heavy machinery.
Change the way in which we view the car itself, and the problems will disappear.
I never understood why there hasn't been a phone protocol / standard devised to implement zoning via local low-power beacons?
Why must we resort to jamming - that's a very blunt instrument!
Imagine being able to place a beacon in a movie theater that politely asks all the phones nearby not to ring loudly.
Or one in a change-room that asks phones to please disable their cameras.
Or have auto-makers embed them in cars, so if a phone is in the driver seat region, it sensibly disables itself, except for emergency calls etc.
Or on aircraft, so you wouldn't have to switch to flight mode...
Sounds like a great way to reduce gas mileage.
It's odd that so many people don't understand that electronics actually run on gasoline...via an alternator. What a concept.
It's more distracting to talk to have a conversation with a living person in the car than to talk on a cell phone anyway. Are we going to make passenger cars illegal next?
The policy is a ridiculous infringement upon personal freedom.
Pay for it through auctioning off confiscated cell phones discovered through the service.
Just think for a minute how most of the cell phones were transported into the prisons and I think I might have found a flaw in your business plan...
[UID-HeinzIntel]
...of people who try to force their lifestyle on you. They are rediculous. Everything is a "what if" to them if they think about not having one. To anyone who does not own a cell phone and does not want to own one, the reasons they state are mere excuses of someone trying to protect their precious little toy. The worst part is it is *your* falt if you don't have one if and when they try to contact you.
I would place these cellphone people just a stack below Facebookers.
Honestly, people can live without cell phones in their cars. Or even near the road. Shit happens. Deal with it.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
There's a simple solution: require mobile phone manufacturers to degrade handset functionality when the GPS unit detects the handset is moving beyond a certain threshold, ie 10mph. This "inMotion" boolean could be used to disable handset access to text messing or dialing of non-emergency (911) numbers. In smartphones it also could be used in combination with a "mobileAllowed" boolean to prevent a web browser from being used but still allow access to applications such as maps. If the FCC added this requirement to their certification process, all handsets would require this functionality or they could not be sold within the USA. Mobile phone manufacturers need to take a lesson from vehicle manufacturers - many in-car navigation or "infotainment" systems are already limiting access to some features while the vehicle is in motion. This type of implementation would disable access to some features while individuals travel on public transportation, which wouldn't be ideal. I supposed a work-around to re-enable the functionality while in motion could be the use of a Bluetooth or WiFi beacon that indicates full-functionality while inmotion is allowed. If Bluetooth headsets can be sold for $10, I'm sure something like this could be manufactured inexpensively and sold to authorized clients.
...but can't the scrambler just allow emergency calls (AAA, 911, etc), thus negating the OP's argument? Cell phones SHOULD be blocked from cars, period. Human's got along fine without them before, and if you need to make a call, just pull over. World doesn't revolve around you, welcome to the wonderful land of DELAYS
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
Just this last summer, a guy was killed right in front of my house when his car was caught in a head on collision by a young lady that was driving on the wrong side of the road. Turns out she was on her cell phone at the time.
Had she NOT been able to call on her cell, the accident might never have occurred.
On the other hand, had anyone else NOT been able to call, either, there would have been TWO fatalities instead of one.
Jamming the cell phones? Wrong solution for the wrong problem. It's not the phone, it's the user. So, at risk for suggesting an obvious solution.....DON'T jam the phones, but make the punishment for having an accident involving a cell phone far more severe. Have an accident? Misdemeanor. Kill someone doing it? Harsher, depending on circumstances. Involve a DUI or a cell phone? Instant felony with hard labor, mandatory 20 years. (Your state/ jurisdiction may adjust the punishments accordingly, of course.) Obviously, if premeditated, the punishments should go up from there.
If it hurts bad enough, most sensible folks WILL give it at least a momentary thought, beforehand.
So because of this, I should put my plans to build and implement a mobile phone jammer on hold? I don't mean to cut everyone off, just the morons that feel the urge to jabber on the phone while driving and cut me off in traffic, fail to signal, wait far longer than a New York minute when the light turns green, then speed to try and keep up with traffic, fail to notice me and others when merging, text while driving (where I live one texter failed to see a highway worker, ran him over killing him, wondered why the car was working badly stopped it, got out (all while still texting) and then texted to her friend that she had ran over and killed a highway worker while texting and driving). Now if we could only include people fiddling with GPS's, watching movies, putting on makeup, shaving, eating, and having sex while driving, (or attempting to drive), then we would really have something. Oh, and for the great unwashed, talking and driving is only about 10% more dangerous than blowing over .1 while driving, since the drunk at least is trying, and the yapper on the phone doesn't have their head in the game, and adding 'hands free device' to the mix is missing the whole point about having your head in the game.
I have a MUCH better idea. How 'bout technology which detects a cell signal in-progress then immediately disables the vehicle's accelerator? Also, if the vehicle is traveling above 55 mph, the steering wheel locks and the brakes quit.
Then the whole thing is uploaded to YouTube.
Quite often GPS also measures velocity directly. They typically do it by means of tracking the Doppler shifts, which they anyway need to do due to the high velocity of the satellite and position changes in the sky. By doing this, you get very accurate velocities, much better than what you'd get from differentiating position. It's very cool stuff, check it out.
Some description here:
http://www.aprs.net/vm/gps_cs.htm
Although I disagree with LaHood on this one, your comment is fallacious. He is attempting to protect me from people who lack the skill to do two things at once. Like I want to get run over by a 16 year old girl who is talking on the phone while chewing bubblegum and paying attention to her friends in her dads hummer.
You have no idea about the irony of that statement do you. Driving can be broken down into more than 1 thing. You must watch for traffic signals and other traffic while operating the vehcile for instance. In fact is full of situations where you must do two things at once. You train people to deal with distractions and make good judgements about what a safe workload is while operating heavy machinery. The problem isn't the 16 year old talking on the phone while driving. The problem is that she's allowed behind the wheel when she makes such bad judgement. Taking away her phone won't make her a safe driver.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
This is a case of the few fucking it for many. What needs to be done is to go medieval on their shit; driving while on the phone is intent to manslaughter. And in reality, it is.
Sure something that reports a maximum speed may see some blip affect the results. But I use GPS applications that display your current speed when driving, and 99% of the time time they are very accurate as to have fast I am traveling. The fact navigation apps work at all is a good indication GPS can reasonably infer speed over a period of time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm all for disabling cell phones while driving, but an all-out jammer built into the vehicle is just going too far. I can imagine having to make a call while in a parking lot, but being completely unable to unless I walk into the building because of all the cell signal jammers in the parking lot. Walk out to the road away from the parking lot, and you might just get a dropped call as someone in one of these fancy new cars drives by. Suddenly, cell phones become untrustworthy garbage that can't be used unless you're in a house. Honestly, this sounds eerily similar to traditional telephones, with the main difference being that you can use it in houses other than your own....
There are two things I think would be much better. The first method would be to detect how "fast" the phone is moving, and if it is 10-12MPH or more, it can be assumed that the user is driving a vehicle and the phone will refuse to function. This is completely possible, as cell phones track users anyway. The second method, and I'm not sure if this would somehow be possible, would be for the car to somehow send a signal if it is in gear, and cell phones would be able to detect this signal, assume that the person is driving, and refuse to work. Using both of these methods, you could make a quick call before you take off from the driver's seat or make an emergency call without having to walk 20 feet from your vehicle after getting in an accident and breaking your leg.
How about an RFID built into the steering wheel and a corresponding short-range sensor built into the phone which when activated, shuts down the phone? There are probably several other ways to do this, too. But since I don't really want it done, there's not much incentive for me to work on the problem.
If this gets required, I'm SURE it'll remind people to vote on election day 2012, and President Obama might as well not bother running for re-election. This is going to be the very last straw for a lot of people, I think.
Tech Public Policy stuff
However, I for one would love to see bus drivers forbidden from using them, seeing police officers from using them - because I know a few cops and its not used for on the job calls - they are talking to their wife.
First make public officials and employees be model citizens before forcing it down our throats. Though as an avid motorcyclist I fully support banning them in moving vehicles. The number of weaving, slow moving, fail to respond, violating someone else lane, cutting people off, etc, using cell phones is amazing. Many people don't notice just how many people are affected by their phone usage but long time riders know to watch the driver as well as the wheels to see what the other vehicle is going to do.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Are they also going to include technology that rips the sandwich out of your hand if you try to eat while driving?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
just like the naked body scanners.
The distracted driving problem is so severe, that the death toll for last year alone set a new record for being the lowest since records were started - 33,000 deaths, as opposed to a few years ago when it was 40,000, and a decade or so, during the 55 mph nonsense, when it was 50,000. Yeah, it's certainly a crisis...
Talking on cell phones safely while driving is something you have to LEARN. With practice, you get good at it, and can pay attention to what you need to when you need to. Of course, you also learn what sort of roads are too dangerous to do it on at all, too. Big interstates aren't those kind. Its tiny, twisty roads that are the problem.
If they go and do this, watch me give back my simple, little, single-function cell phone, and stop paying $50 / month. I don't much need it other than driving, which is about 90% of where I use it.
I agree that I would like to see some of the users who can not multi-task put down the cell phone and drive, but there are many scenarios where I want to have the ability to make a phone call while in the car.
1) I see an accident on the highway and want to call in help for the trapped motorists.
2) My wife/daughter has a dead battery and needs to call AAA. Especially if it is dark and they are at a mall parking lot, etc. I want them to be able to get in the car, lock the doors and be safe when they make that call. If being in the car blocks cell phone use, then you are making it easier for people who prey on stranded women to get to them.
3) When I am calling the police about the ID10T that is drivig erraticly in front of me while talking on his cell phone.
I work for a company that sells anti-theft devices for vehicles.
A few months ago, we were contacted by police because a vehicle couldn't be traced using such a system. When they finally found the vehicle they also found a cellphone jammer the thieves left behind to prevent the system from using it's gsm to report the theft.
This system also reports crashes etc...
So, outside of thieves, I can't really think of someone being in favor of this proposal.
Idiots. Only socialist nanny-state folks who haven't thought this through would possibly agree that it's a good idea. Solves one problem on the surface, and stupid or lazy people tend to stop thinking after looking at the surface. Unintended consequence: Criminals or aggressive driver tailing innocent victim; daughter in back seat wants to call 911 for help - WHOOPS! CELL USE DISABLED!!! Unintended consequence: 1800-492-TIPS warning sign over highway says to report any sighting of car with license XYZ; you spot it while driving on highway. Passenger tries to call the sighting in so law enforcement can respond to this critical need - WHOOPS! CELL USE DISABLED!!! Unintended consequence: Family on long highway drive. Minor at home urgently needs to call Mom (sitting in passenger seat) because she thinks burglars are casing house and is afraid. Gets "voicemail" and not the advice she needs because ... WHOOPS! CELL USE DISABLED FOR ALL PASSENGERS!
This has got to be one of the most stupid, inane, foolhardy, "jump on the bandwagon because it feels politically safe" thefts of American liberty to hit the idea map in years.
Now anyone considering criminal activity near a car will know that drivers have no way of summoning help!
Anyone who suggests that this is a good idea should be subjected to hourly drug tests and random TSA grope screening.
-- Now where did I put that CB radio? Breaker one nine. {go ahead break} Yeah, Dusty here, beam me up 'cause there's no intelligent life down here.
Hook up to external antennae? voila?
The only argument I'm seeing against this idea is in the case of emergencies. But we already have a solution for that, it's called OnStar, which is superior to a personal cellphone in most emergency situations (e.g. an accident where I'm unable to use my phone or it's been thrown from the vehicle.)
The solution would be to couple in-car scramblers with a mandate for OnStar in all vehicles. There would need to be a basic package offered for free that is linked with the 911 system.
So instead of flipping out, let's find a solution we can all live with. Because the status quo of distracted driving is creating a very dangerous situation for us all.
Isn't the real problem driver education? Would it not be more useful to require recurring driver training?
Just wait until someone tries to report a crime or call for help when they are in danger if they get out of their car. This is an ignorant person that has not thought through the concept, and as most liberals, believes he is smarter than the person making the choice for themself.
Increase the penalty for ACTUAL accidents caused by cell use and let personal freedom work as it should.
What I don't get is how can people pay over $5000 for a car and be so cheap that they don't buy a good $200 hands free system for their car?
I've had a good integrated Bluetooth system in all my cars for years now. It not only makes driving safer when talking, but also much more convenient in general. Talking to a good hands free (not the in-ear stuff) is like talking with a passenger. And when the system is Bluetooth (instead of dock), you don't even have to fish out the phone to connect. It all goes automatically when you start up your car. And to answer, you just press a button on the dash. Just like any other button you have on the dash that you occasionally press when driving.
Ok, a good integrated system will cost you a but to install, but even the plug-in and forget systems are way better than any in-ear toys. And if you are willing to pay over $10000 for you car, why are you so cheap not to pay for the install of a good integrated system? (Or in case of a seasoned /.-er, so lazy not to install one yourself?)
I'm all for total ban of cell phones in cars, unless you got a good hands-free. But banning good hands-free use is just as sensible as banning passengers in cars. Both distract the driver equally if talking to them...
Recently I was playing golf at a course that had electric carts with built in GPS map displays. The software detected that I was approaching a no-cart area and stopped moving forward and the cart displayed a message telling you to back up and turn around. They can also turn off the cart if it goes off the course to prevent theft. So in this way a phone could detect that it's moving faster than walking speed and disable the phone function. Of course this wouldn't work on a bus or train but it's an idea.
Although I disagree with LaHood on this one, your comment is fallacious. He is attempting to protect me from people who lack the skill to do two things at once.
You actually touched on the real issue with highway safety in the US... skill.
We let almost anyone with a heartbeat have a driver's license. There may be some states with decent requirements, but where I'm at, the entire testing process is a complete joke. All you have to do is drive around some cones in a parking lot. That's it...
If the US implemented similar training and testing requirements to what they have in Europe, the highway fatality rates would plunge. Of course, any common sense solution is destined to fail to be implemented in the US political system. We prefer actions that aren't that significant in the grand scheme of things, but give the politicians the opportunity to claim they're fixing the problems.
And so, we have 55 mph speed limits on 6 lane wide interstate highways, red light cameras that increase the number of accidents at intersections in which they are installed and arguments for cell phone jammers. All the while, our real problem is that few people have the skills that they should have to be on the road safely to begin with...
Putting everything in jail will also save lifes and have world peace. Let's get going .....
Which idiot put this idiot in office?
Anyone any idea who will accept liability if tis measure stops people from reporting an accident or a dangerous condition? Imagine a multiple car pile-up, and nobody able to call the police to close the road..
Clueless, simply clueless.
Insert
Great, we've finally hit the pinnacle of the information age: The government is actually trolling.
who was driving while talking on the phone... it'd be the morons sticking their heads out the window, cell phone in one hand, steering wheel in the other (HOPEFULLY! keeping the bluetooth headset from blowing away is important, too!), reaching out far enough to get enough of a signal to make a call.
There is another important aspect to this that you missed: audio bandwidth.
Cellphones are designed with a high level of compression (so that a single tower can handle numerous calls simultaneously); to accomplish this, the audio is seriously degraded (massive loss of highs and lows). As a result, your brain is working much harder (although it's subconscious, so you don't notice) to pick out what is being said, rendering your ability to concentrate on other tasks far more difficult than you realize. It doesn't matter whether or not you're using a hands-free set; it is significantly more distracting than listening to a higher fidelity source, like someone sitting ne
I am not a number - I am a free man!
It really doesnt being human means being wrong and being wrong a lot, it also means being ignorant and believing your right when you are wrong.. I would fully support killing cell phones in cars because I had a relative who had their head physically separated from their body when a oncoming driver was texting his 'bro' about the score of the game earlier that night. A few weeks later a newly married kid i went to school with got intimate and interactive with a tree, they had to cut the tree down because they couldnt get all the blood and bone shards out of the bark. He had been texting about picking up KFC on the way home. I am anti-human completely, for all the intelligent people we have in the world we squabble and argue and compartmentalize absolutely everything. We spend so much time bickering and arguing and debating absolutely EVERYTHING and this forum and others like it are perfect examples of this. STUPID is STUPID and its a sad commentary on humanity when we have to develop laws to protect people from what should be common sense. And when you have laws created by stupid people to govern stupid people (and i am by no means excluded) what we end up with is the world we live in. Where the laws do as much to protect criminals as it does to protect the innocent. I am sure this will be cried out as a flame but its not its a harsh reality most of us are to IGNORANT to admit to, too much pride to believe we may be wrong, about just about everything. Blind leading the blind has never rang so true.
When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.