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."

32 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 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?
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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?
    8. 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.

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

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

    10. 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
    11. 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
    12. 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
  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. 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...

  5. 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~
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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?