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
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...
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'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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Remove the scrambler and sell it on ebay to pranksters.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Please be sarcasm
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.
Front seat displays are required to have a safety switch that only allows them to turn on when the parking brake is applied.
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
You don't even see the gas prices of the Autobahn gas stations until you exit the Autobahn because advertising is strictly prohibited.
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?
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.
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!
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.
That's because it is nanny-state politics. You like to talk about the 'isolated' incidents where talking and driving is absolutely necessary and people will blow it out of proportion, but how blown out of proportion is his claim of 'distracted driving' being a huge problem?
I talk on the phone and drive all the time and have yet to get in an accident. Ever. Most people I know can magically manage to do the same thing. On top of that, talking on the phone and driving is not even illegal as it is no less distracting than talking to a passenger. Are they going to enforce mandatory noise shields between the front and back seat to ensure 'distracted drivers' don't 'ruin lives and kill people' talking to their passengers?
Manufactured crisis as an excuse for nanny-state regulation. Occasionally those lovably paranoid tea party bastards are right.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
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 is just what we need, someone trying to drift around a curve while watching tv.
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...
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 :-)
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!
I honestly can't tell if this is flamebait or if you lead a rediculously sheltered life in a big city. I live in a fairly big city (Charlotte), and your idea is so rediculously financially infeasable even for the population density of the 20th biggest city in the US. It would cost literally TRILLIONS to implement something like that for the eastern seaboard alone, and you haven't even taken into account the 10 pp/sq mile that exists over a large portion of middle US.
I'm all for ideas, but some sense of realism and rational thought must go into them. The world isn't black and white and isn't one-size-fits-all.
Easy workaround here:
Cut the cable for the parking bake. ...?
Always leave engaged.
Take out the bulb for the brake light.
Profit!
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?
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.
[Citation Needed]
According to wikipedia, the interstate highway system cost $114 billion over 35 years, or $425 billion after adjusting for inflation. Admittedly, there are a lot of state highways that aren't a part of the interstate highway system, but it's a long way from $425 billion to multiple trillions.
a public transportation system that eliminates the personal automobile
So a public transportation system that runs on my time-table, goes to precisely where I want it to, in any weather, waits for me, allows me to carry and store several hundred pounds of stuff, is a platform for my HAM radio gear, that doesn't mind me carrying firearms or animal carcasses?
Good luck there.
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
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.
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]