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."

53 of 1,065 comments (clear)

  1. Go for it by maiden_taiwan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Go for it by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because powerful politician buying CEOs are driving themselves, right ? :)

    2. Re:Go for it by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Super idea. Let's take away the ability for anybody inside a vehicle (and presumably within some radius outside of it too) to make a 911 call in the case of an emergency.

      Idiocy.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Go for it by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if they're passengers, there's no technology available (now or ever) which can distinguish between a cell being used by a driver and a cell being used by a passenger. Selective disabling is not possible, so passengers will also be affected.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Go for it by El+Torico · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, let's just punish everyone driving instead of holding individuals accountable for their reckless driving?

      Sometimes the right wing yelps of "Nanny State!" aren't just a boy crying wolf.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    5. Re:Go for it by maiden_taiwan · · Score: 3, Informative

      The data show that your risk of an accident increases while 4x when you're on the phone.

      http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/

      This has nothing to do with "misuse." It's a human limitation.

    6. Re:Go for it by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FCC will not allow this.

      There are already clear laws on the books prohibiting cell phones in prisons, yet the FCC will not allow cell jamming in prisons.

      The number of cell phone induced accidents is GROSSLY inflated in another act of security theater. Cops are instructed to report cell phone involvement if the merely SEE a cell phone in an accident.

      You only need one story like this Bad Cell Phone Reception Made Reporting Bus Accident More Difficult to realize how dumb this would be. People dieing by the side of the road because no one can call for help due to all the vehicles jamming signals.

      Not going to happen.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Go for it by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You missed a step or two: Pull over, stop the car, get out of the car regardless of the weather conditions or any personal threat you may face (there are lots of reasons people call 911), possibly walk away from the car until the jamming field subsides ... and finally, make the call.

      Or how about this one: Convince the driver of the car to pull over, plead with the driver to pull over so you can get out, keep pleading with the driver "please, please, stop the car! just stop the car!" ... repeat as necessary.

      This plan is idiocy. Complete and utter idiocy.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    8. Re:Go for it by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just pull over, stop the car, and make the call. That's what I did in the "crash through the fence" incident I described.

      Yeah, this is the best thing about the anti-cellphone laws: now instead of driving along the road while talking on their phone, the morons _STOP THEIR CAR_ no matter where they may be, forcing me to pass them on blind bends or residential streets where they just stopped in the middle of the road.

      Morons are morons, trying to stop them being morons just makes them act moronically in a slightly different way.

    9. Re:Go for it by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As cell phone accidents are only a small percentage of actual accidents, I would say they are not worth the effort of mandating tech to disable them.

      Let X = total number of negligent accidents caused by inexperienced drivers or drivers distracted by passengers.
      Let Y = Total number of accidents caused by cell phone distraction.

      Do you really think Y is higher than X? I'd bet X is two orders of magnitude higher than Y.

    10. Re:Go for it by DarKnyht · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Guess what, so does eating while driving, changing the radio station, changing clothes, dealing with crying toddler in back of car, and even talking to someone else located in the car. The fact is anything can be a severe distraction to driving.

      Poor judgement leads to accidents and not the items being used. And as someone famously said, "You can't fix stupid."

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    11. Re:Go for it by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ever heard of a directional wave. It's not trivial but definitely possible to disable cell transmission to a single sector of a car.

      Because the antenna of a cell used by a driver is always located in the vicinity of the driver's seat.

      Oh, wait, that's pathetically wrong. Any car with a built-in communication system is already exempt from your brilliant suggestion. So is any hand-held cell phone with any kind of headset or hands-off capability, if it's clipped or placed anywhere in the car other than the driver's seat or console. Like the dash board in the front passenger's vicinity.

      "Directional waves". Lol.

      And btw, assuming you meant that first sentence as a rhetorical question, even rhetorical questions end with a question mark, don'tcha know?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Go for it by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      FCC will not allow this.

      There are already clear laws on the books prohibiting cell phones in prisons, yet the FCC will not allow cell jamming in prisons.

      What I don't understand is why people want to jam cell phones in prisons. All you need to do is surround the prison with cell towers that *you* control and then whitelist any cell #'s that you authorize. Any other cell # gets cut off at the tower and you have a wonderful record of how many illegal cell phones there are in the prison. No jamming required at all!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    13. Re:Go for it by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well with the inclusion of GPS tech in all phones thanks to laws past 9 years ago.. no jamming is needed.. just require the phone to not function if it detects it is moving faster than 5-10mph

      Yes, because nobody takes the train, takes the bus, rides a bike, goes sailing, or any one of a thousand other things that can produce those speeds.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    14. Re:Go for it by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even when my phone is locked I can press 9-1-1-Talk and get connected to help. Hopefully this technology would work in a similar fashion such that emergency calls were always allowed to go through.

      I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that radio jammers can't distinguish 911 calls.

    15. Re:Go for it by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So far I've gotten 4 drunk drivers off the road, reported 2 extremely dangerous incidencts where debris fell onto a freeway (railroad tie and blown into traffic sign on its side pointed forward so as to be on edge to a driver)... and had 0 related phone related accidents.

    16. Re:Go for it by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that everyone can turn off GPS in their phones.

      You would also have to block all cellular radio traffic, email, web surfing for passengers, just to close the Dread Skype Hole.

      This idea will kill more American accident victims in the first year than 9/11. There are 3 million injured in car crashes (not counting fatalities) in the US each year, with some 2 million of these being serious/permanent injuries. If just 10% of those were denied the ability to call for help, either by themselves or passersby, imagine the death toll.

      LaHood > Bin Ladden.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re:Go for it by maiden_taiwan · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a fine opinion, but look at the research. The data don't agree with you. Driving while talking on a cell phone turns out worse than all the things you mention, when actually measured. There seems to be something special about the way the brain handles a phone conversation that impairs the ability to multitask more severely.

      Don't take my word for it. Read the research.

    18. Re:Go for it by leenks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What has this got to do with Communism? I don't follow?

    19. Re:Go for it by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Interesting
      >The number of cell phone induced accidents is GROSSLY inflated in another act of security theater.

      I freely admit this is anecdotal evidence, but in the last four years I've had four people run into the back end of my car when I was stopped at a stoplight. Every time I've seen it coming, and I've seen the person talking on a cellphone right up to the moment of impact.

      I'm having some bumperstickers made that say "is that call worth $2500?/that's how much bumper replacements will cost you" if I can trim the second line down to something legible on a bumper sticker. Though they'll be too busy talking on their phones to read it.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    20. Re:Go for it by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      GPS devices don't measure acceleration. They measure approximate location. It's not hard to get a reflected signal and have a GPS device jump around. Especially if you're using ghetto-GPS (cell tower triangulation).

    21. Re:Go for it by hldn · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's arguably more retarded. however, both ideas are extremely retarded, so it's not even worth arguing.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    22. Re:Go for it by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People have been driving for over 50 years without having cell phones. If you think this is too heinous, then you're far too addicted to your phone.

      -1000 Missed Point.

      The belief that people should not communicate via cell phone while driving is not in dispute here. What is being is argued is that the Federal Government should not be in the dubious business of forcibly eliminating a communications channel used by millions of people, and that if they're going to do that, they'd better have a damn sight better justification.

      If distracted driving is truly causing such an incredible amount of death and destruction as to warrant mandating jamming devices in every single automobile on the road ... well, I'd say we have a much greater problem. That is, millions of human beings who are so incapable of exercising restraint and good judgment while operating a motor vehicle that they shouldn't really have been granted driver's licenses in the first place. That problem, however, would require far more intestinal fortitude that any politician would be capable of mustering, because everyone feels that they are, at worst, an average driver and that they are entitled to a driver's license even if they are a danger to themselves and others.

      Fact is, distracted driving is a symptom of that larger problem, that of drivers who are poorly-trained and almost completely unaware of the consequences of their actions. These are members of the same drain-bamaged subset of the human species who were causing fatal accidents back when the horse and buggy ruled the road. You have to fix the people before you can fix the problem, and banning, nay jamming cellular communication is a band-aid at best, and as is typical with much high-profile safety-related regulation nowadays, it will cause as much harm as it prevents. The people responsible will never own up to that, of course.

      I'm waiting for MADD to spin off MADD (Mother's Against Distracted Driving) and get another Constitutional Exception rammed through, so that our supposedly guaranteed due-process rights can be violated for simply using a cell phone. You laugh, but as of right now NHTSA inflates drunk-driving statistics by counting an accident as "alcohol-related" even if the driver was stone-cold sober, and you are essentially convicted by the cop as soon as you submit to a breathalyzer test. MADD uses those "numbers" to justify their near-fascist agenda, and if you think the same thing couldn't happen here you're fooling yourself, and in fact I'm thinking that this is exactly what this is all about: removing yet another cornerstone from the Constitution.

      Stupid is as stupid does, and fascists never seem to understand that nobody likes them, and that we wish they would all just go away and die a painful, lonely death.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    23. Re:Go for it by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've reported drunk drivers before. One was a semi. Few minutes after I called I saw the cop quietly pull up behind the semi. The next time that semi swerved into the other lane the cop pulled him over.

      I really feel like I saved someone's life that day.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    24. Re:Go for it by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "sadly the truck driver lost his job due to the DUI, and his two children starved to death"

      Or maybe he had suffered from a stroke or was diabetic and my call to the police got the emergency help he needed? We'll never know, but I'm glad I helped get him off the road that day, whatever the reason for the reckless driving.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    25. Re:Go for it by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because thanks to Republican propoganda, idiots think any government regulation is "communist" and evil, no matter how anti-communist, or not evil it actually is.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    26. Re:Go for it by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't be fucking ridiculous. Hundreds of accidents saved due to traffic slowdowns? I thought we had a mechanism for detecting that: It's called a fuckload of stationary cars in front of you with their brake lights on. If you can't see it half a mile in advance you are either on an incredibly badly designed road or you cannot fucking see.

      It's not just not seeing the backups. It's the stupid lane changing maniacs trying to force their way through the backups. If every one of those people got text message alerts notifying them of backups, and if every one of those backups were adequately reported by someone calling on a cell phone, many of those accidents would not happen because the people who were in a hurry would find an alternate route around the problem and would miss the backup entirely. When I listen to traffic reports in the San Francisco Bay area, it's almost inevitable that in any backup, there will always be at least one, and often two or three additional accidents in the backup. Backups cause accidents, whether you want to admit it or not. Not fatal accidents, generally speaking, but accidents.

      Finally if you're one of the endless supply of cunts who insist on navigating complex junctions with high speed traffic (Black Dam roundabout onto M3 J7 in particular), by talking on your phone...

      Stop right there. I'm talking about an hour-long commute at night on U.S. interstate highways and similar, which A. have few (if any) complex junctions by any stretch of the imagination, and B. involves sitting there driving for twenty miles going in a straight line without even changing lanes. I always stop talking before any exit ramp, and that's as complex as the junctions get. It is not only possible, but easy to drive responsibly while having low-stress phone conversations. Some of us are that sensible, and our rights should not be taken away merely because a few idiots don't know how to drive. Spank the idiots with fines for unsafe driving. We already have laws on the books to cover that adequately without introducing new draconian laws that contribute nothing of value.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Mandatory chastity belts? by martas · · Score: 5, Funny

    To make sure blowjobs aren't distracting our drivers.

    1. Re:Mandatory chastity belts? by kenrblan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great insightful and funny comment. Trying to block cell phones as a distraction is futile. The problem is drivers who are looking for distractions. Seeing other drivers texting is quite frightening, but I have seen many other distractions. Some I have witnessed include application of makeup using rear view mirror, reading books and newspapers, browsing for items out of reach, eating with both hands occupied, using a laptop computer, and watching a movie on portable devices. That is not anywhere close to an exhaustive list, but it is quite obvious that technology cannot solve all distractions.

      --
      Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Mandatory chastity belts? by DamnRogue · · Score: 4, Funny

      People will do absolutely anything while driving. I have personally witnessed the following activities performed by a (presumably) sober adult, driving a vehicle at ~70 mph on I-75 south in Atlanta:

      1) Playing the the flute. The driver had both hands on the flute, with sheet music propped up on the wheel. He was steering the car with his knees.

      2) Shaving one's head. This man was peering into his rear view mirror, head lathered with shaving cream, shaving his head with a STRAIGHT RAZOR.

  3. Fucking nanny-state moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Fucking nanny-state moron. by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Settle down all you knee-jerkers, that's not actually what he said

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    2. Re:Fucking nanny-state moron. by RapmasterT · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Stop taking words OUT of peoples mouths. He said

      "“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that. A number of [cell technology innovators] came to our Distracted Driving Summit here in Washington and presented their technology, and that’s one way. "

      He said they're "looking at it", as in still considering...present tense. It may be a sloppy sentence and not what he meant, but this was his CLARIFICATION of what he meant and still managed to not say he was against it.
      this idea is painfully stupid at face value. The fact that he'd even give it the time of day is scary.

  4. To save even more lives... by the_rajah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  5. Dumb by Ziktar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  6. won't happen by perotbot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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~
  7. Billboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Accidents, etc by mistiry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Your next-generation, DRM-locked automobile by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Basically no chance of this happening by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  11. Why not just take driving away? by Gorkamecha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Neat! by zmollusc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Remember that name. by jhoegl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Driving shouldn't be for the public by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please be sarcasm

  15. If only they'd use their power for good by mcmonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Can we put him in jail for manslaughter by Quila · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the first person trapped in a car dies because his cell phone wouldn't work and he couldn't call for help?

  17. German Autobahn by Quila · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You don't even see the gas prices of the Autobahn gas stations until you exit the Autobahn because advertising is strictly prohibited.

  18. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  19. Re:But TVs are OK?! by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Funny

    That is just what we need, someone trying to drift around a curve while watching tv.

  20. Unintended consequences by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OnStar no longer functions.
    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 ... (People have self-rescued via cell phone from vehicles.)

    Just saying this needs to be well thought out...

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  21. Re:Driving shouldn't be for the public by PPalmgren · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  22. Ummm... by wfolta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  23. Re:So, what if I have a car with bluetooth receive by D+Ninja · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.