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."
Selective disabling is not possible, so passengers will also be affected.
Ever heard of a directional wave. It's not trivial but definitely possible to disable cell transmission to a single sector of a car. Now, having said that, I still don't support it.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
And don't forget cars with built in phones. Hopefully the government will reimburse all the buyers of luxury vehicles and hands free headsets..
if making it impossible to use a mobile phone while in a car can save lives, he's all for it."
Fun scenario: car crashes, passengers are trapped. Scrambler stays active. Passengers (and possibly people nearby) can't call for help. Hopefully the scramblers will have a very short range..
The scrambler may also run down the battery in your cell phone pretty quick if the phone ramps up power to the antennae to try and get a signal.
which is totally what she said
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.
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.
how much are you willing to bet? how quickly could you pay after i could prove you wrong?
it's a better option than putting jammers in cars..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
or you're an idiot?
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?
With all these tubes, it's pretty easy to find second sources of information. Next time, don't be so quick to put on your three pointed hat and grab yer musket. In half the time spent on your faux outrage and musket-waving, you could have just HOVERED over the story link and you'd see this comes from THE REGISTER which in turn is quoting some obscure news source. Maybe you did that, and that's why you are posting under your anonymous alter ego: Demonstrations of willful ignorance tend to to get played back when least convenient.
Now even though we know this story is a hoax, you still can go around saying otherwise... because it "MAY" be true because even an improbable future event cannot be disproved, riiight? You so clever.
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."
we should also ban drivers talking to their passengers too. cell phone use is not the same as drink driving.