Slashdot Mirror


No Tech Panacea For Tech-Distracted Driving

The Washington Post features an article on the continuing problem of drivers distracted by technology, specifically by texting or even talking on the phone while at the wheel. The piece mentions a few apps designed to disable phones, or at least some phone features, when they detect sustained motion that might indicate that the user is driving. Trouble is, as the writer points out, these apps are trying to do a context-sensitive task (under the best of circumstances) with only the broadest of clues. Further, many of them require ongoing subscription fees, just to be able to disable phone functions — and yet feature override features simple enough for a driver to activate.

47 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. My solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Easy, just use my patented DPUTFP method.

    Don't Pick Up The Fucking Phone.

    1. Re:My solution! by issicus · · Score: 2

      bluetooth dongle on the car turns off phone ring, problem solved.

    2. Re:My solution! by hattig · · Score: 3

      In addition to turning off the ring tone, once you set the phone to "I am driving" mode, the phone auto-answers phone calls with a message you have pre-recorded, and answers texts with a preset text message.

      Communication achieved, no driver interaction.

      This should be a standard feature on phones, I can't see the difficulty in implementing it. Car bluetooth can activate driving mode, or you can do it in the same way that you set Airplane Mode.

    3. Re:My solution! by hattig · · Score: 2

      Who cares about automated texts when driving. Volume := Off in driving mode, you can check them later on.
      Indeed it doesn't need to be a phone feature, it can be the network that handles everything, with the phone communicating the driving state to the network.

      I guess it's actually setting "go to voicemail immediately for all calls, use my driving message, turn volume and vibrate off", either by a quick shortcut (Driving Mode) or by connecting car bluetooth (or any other event I guess).

  2. Same As the NTSB by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Easy, just use my patented DPUTFP method.

    Don't Pick Up The Fucking Phone.

    Right. And it's no surprise that that is what the NTSB is recommending. From the article:

    The National Transportation Safety Board hasn’t weighed in on any apps. Its recommendation is a human solution: Just don’t use your phone at all while driving, even if you’re using a hands-free device.

    I'm glad to see that their prosecution efforts are coming to fruition. Now we just need to get the word out that, like drinking and driving, this is socially unacceptable and a harsh negative stigma should be associated with it. If you do it, fuck you, you're endangering people's lives. They're finally looking at cell phone records for the time periods surrounding crashes, just like BAC and sobriety checks although most people are probably lying to escape any ability of police checking those records.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Same As the NTSB by alphatel · · Score: 2

      My car has a nanny for the built-in GPS map. You can't do anything while you're driving. even at 2 MPH which means you have to pull over just to select a different destination.

      Of course, someone hacked the somnabitch and normal usage is re-enabled. I don't see a point to trying to nanny bad drivers. They suck no matter what you do.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:Same As the NTSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see a point to trying to nanny bad drivers. They suck no matter what you do.

      And what would you call it when cops ticket people for running a stop sign? Isn't that an attempt to "nanny bad drivers"? I mean, in both situations you're doing something careless and endangering people. And most states now consider texting while driving a violation of traffic laws. So are you arguing that mild fines for disobeying traffic laws isn't going to stop bad drivers from sucking?

    3. Re:Same As the NTSB by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My car has a nanny for the built-in GPS map. You can't do anything while you're driving. even at 2 MPH which means you have to pull over just to select a different destination.

      Of course, someone hacked the somnabitch and normal usage is re-enabled. I don't see a point to trying to nanny bad drivers. They suck no matter what you do.

      This is my number one reason not to waste money on a built in GPS system in my car. I'm old enough that my wife used to use "paper maps" like ink on cellulose, then we used a hand held GPS, and now android phone with google navigation app. If I had a built in GPS system, I would not be able to use it, and my wife would have to go back to paper maps. So I'm paying thousands of dollars for an option that does ... nothing. They could make more profit by shipping a paver brick.

      The number two reason is I can afford it but I'm too stubborn to pay thousands for a factory option when I can buy a handheld GPS for a hundred with 48 hours of battery, or just use my phone for a couple hours until the battery dies (at which point I need to plug it in)

      A speed cut-out for a GPS is a technology destroyer. It would be simpler for everyone for the FCC to stop granting a license to import. Which is too bad, GPS is kind of handy.

      The other thing I've never understood is if 10 people get killed by people Fing around with a GPS, that is a national call to action. But if 100 people get killed by people Fing around with paper maps, eh, thats just business, thats how it goes, too bad so sad. I'm not sure destroying GPS as a usable technology is worth killing 90 additional people or nine-tupling the "navigational death toll", but it seems almost inevitable at this point.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Same As the NTSB by tom17 · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I just need to go off on a tangent here. For the record, I begrudgingly obey all stop signs.

      But tell me, where is this 'endangering people' coming from in the situation where you roll through a 4-way stop when there are no cars even remotely visible on any of the adjoining roads? I can think of one danger vector - the guy speeding at 100mph without any intent of stopping who plows into the side of you, but he is coming whether you stopped or not.

      I really really hate stop signs and wish they would get with the times and put in more roundabouts or at least 'give way/yield' signage, but I have to live with them for now. I just don't see how not stopping at an empty stop intersection is in the least bit dangerous.

    5. Re:Same As the NTSB by vlm · · Score: 2

      I can think of one danger vector

      The car / pedestrian you didn't see, gets hit at 5 or so MPH instead of 35 MPH.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Same As the NTSB by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Some stop signs make sense, many do not (ie you have perfect visibility of the road and no reason to come to a stop which just wastes time and fuel)...

      And no, mild fines for disobeying traffic laws doesn't seem to do anything, people still disobey laws on a regular basis. Having fines which are the same for everyone just penalises the poor... Do you really think a guy driving a $500k supercar is going to care about a $50 fine? That's just a trivial addition to the cost of driving for him, on top of the huge sums he already pays for insurance and gas.

      On the other hand, someone who can barely afford a car but needs one for work might consider a $50 fine very painful.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    7. Re:Same As the NTSB by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      My wife is in this category, and now has bone problems in her wrist. If she weren't a rugby player at the time and followed her instinct to stiff-arm her vehicular opponent, she'd have likely ended up in a wheelchair for a few months.

      The driver just didn't see her. It was nighttime, in a pretty empty part of a small town, and my wife was wearing dark green on the far side of an intersection at the bottom of a hill. The driver rolled through the stop and accelerated immediately, right into my wife.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    8. Re:Same As the NTSB by CubicleView · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I've wondered about that myself. Assuming the traffic light system remains unchanged, 2 reasons I can think of against allowing any flexibility in running red lights are

      1. Force of habit, if John Doe is used to running red lights since the junctions nearby are always empty he might plough into someone absentmindedly when at an unfamiliar junction.

      2. Ambiguity, a red light is a red light, a “clear junction” is open to interpretation

      I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons against the idea, but the above two seemed enough to me.

    9. Re:Same As the NTSB by residieu · · Score: 2

      We had one of these in a rental car once (a standalone one, not a built-in). It was annoying because even though my wife was the one trying to set our destination and I was driving, it wouldn't let her change anything while we were moving.

    10. Re:Same As the NTSB by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having fines which are the same for everyone just penalises the poor...

      In Switzerland they now fine people proportionally to their wealth. A couple years ago they hit a guy with a ~$290,000 ticket for driving his Ferrari 85 mph through a village, and then 6 months after that, hit another guy for ~$1,000,000 for driving his Mercedes 170 km/h over the speed limit.

      It'll never happen here because Lord knows all the millionaires would come screaming out of the woodwork about how it's punishing their success to make them feel the same sized pinch in their wallets as the hoi polloi, but at the same time, even if the state tried, the courts are so screwed up and skewed towards the wealthy that I'm sure they'd just be able to throw enough money at someone, be it a politician, lawyer, whatever, to make it go away so they wouldn't feel that pinch anyway.

    11. Re:Same As the NTSB by icebike · · Score: 2

      Driving thru is not the same as rolling thru (the California stop), and the op did mention no cars remotely visible on any adjoining roads.

      Many decades ago, stopping at stop signs was optional in the case where there was unobstructed view and no traffic in any direction.

      If you live in a big city, this never applies to you. But in rural areas and farm land its very common to have such intersections.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:Same As the NTSB by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      If your local drug dealers are running 30 year old buicks, they're failing at drug dealing! A few months ago the cops in our area chased a dozen brand new Ferrari's, Lamborghini's and other similar vehicles that were street racing on the freeway. All of them were paid for by drug money.

  3. Google car? by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You'll just have to wait a few more years for it though. Until Google rolls out a beta.

    1. Re:Google car? by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously. The answer to tech distracting drivers is tech replacing drivers.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
  4. Re:GPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...and then they can just turn off that feature.

    If they are that inconsiderate of their own and others safety that they are willing text and drive, I am sure they will have no hesitation turning off the GPS.

  5. Or learn to do both by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Funny

    Posted from my tab while doing 70 down the garden state parkway.

  6. Worse than tech... by csumpi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...are toddlers. I have two of them. They fight, drop their toys, want milk, spill milk, scream, open window, throw things out of the window, get out of their seats... and all these issues have to be mitigated while doing 65 on the interstate.
     

  7. Re:GPS? by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, this would have worked oh so well when that time my editor, myself, and third reporter were rushing home to get an immediate article out. We even snagged a designated driver. Our sole source of wi-fi in this remote area where Amish were a majority population was my hot spot enabled smart phone and the satellite trucks the big boys sent in.

    Look, if you are reaching this point of trying to not-distract people then you might as well take the next steps:
    * No cup holders to encourage drinking while driving. Drinking/eating anything is also a distraction.
    * No radios or other music devices. Distractions are distractions.
    * Maybe even a ban on talking while in a vehicle. How different, when you get down to it, is talking on a phone and talking to a person next to you. One sideways glance to see their reaction at the wrong moment, blammo, road carnage.

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
  8. Re:GPS? by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the latest hyped up excuse for poor driving. Driving is about making decisions, at 50mph. Teach people to make good decisions and the problem is solved.

    Sending a txt while going 5mph in a traffic jam is not going to kill anyone. Likewise while stopped at a red light. Ditto for holding up a map on a phone, depending on speed and congestion.

    There are many scenarios where using a smartphone while driving is no more riskier than driving in general.

    So judge the risk and put the phone, burger, drink, paper map, etc down if there is too much to be safe.

    Some teens/people are horrible at this. These same teens/people will likely have something else that causes their accident if not texting.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  9. Increased penalties and stigmatization by dskoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IMO, driving while texting should be treated the same as driving with blood alcohol over the limit. First offence should get you a three-month license suspension. Second should get you six months. Third should be a lifetime driving ban.

    And that's if no-one is killed or injured. If someone is killed and you were texting or your blood alcohol was over the limit, that's second-degree murder in my book. If society doesn't take these things seriously, we'll continue to kill thousands of people a year.

    1. Re:Increased penalties and stigmatization by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Nope it's a fine idea. I've been at scene's where some idiot has been texting or talking while behind the wheel aka not paying attention and driven into the intersection, while not realizing that someone from the previous green still had control of the intersection and manages to get into a near fatal crash*. There isn't any difference. In both cases you're putting your life, and the life of someone else at risk by making a stupid choice. Both of which are 100% avoidable.

      I'm perfectly fine with suspending and towing drivers cars for 3 days for either offence. We do it for drunks here now. We should do it for people who text, or talk on cell phones. You get your first half a dozen crashes where you can place someone on a cellphone and you'll agree.

      *In Ontario, a driver who has entered an intersection to complete a turn has control of that intersection even if it's turned to red. All other traffic must wait for them to clear it, then they may proceed. This especially applies for left-hand turns. Other vehicles who cut across this vehicle are always at fault.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  10. Yes there is by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There sure is a tech panacea for distracted driving.

    SELF DRIVING CARS

    There. Solved, Q.E.D.

    I want my self driving car and I want it very soon.

    What frustrates me most of all is that the biggest hurdle stopping self driving cars is the damn lawyers who are salivating at suing the first self driving car manufacture who has a problem, even though technology like this would virtually eliminate distracted driving completely.

    1. Re:Yes there is by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      I want my self driving car and I want it very soon.

      As a frequent pedestrian and occasional driver, I can say: as much as you want a self-driving car for yourself, I want it more for others.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Yes there is by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've worked in IT for years in various functions. I do not trust computers to drive my car for me.

      Fly much?

  11. Re:GPS? by PhotoJim · · Score: 2

    So people on trains shouldn't be able to access the Internet either?

    (Yes, some trains have WiFi but the train I was on last week from Philadelphia to New York had really painful WiFi. I had much better connectivity on T-Mobile.)

    The solution is really simple: high penalties. Here in Saskatchewan, where I live, it's about a $120 fine if you get caught using your phone while driving (handsfree use is fine but you are not allowed to touch more than one button to initiate or answer calls). Frankly, the fine should be higher. Teens would be scared to death if they could get a three-month driving suspension and a $500 fine if they got caught texting while driving, and I suspect most adults would be too. It's a behaviour so easy to avoid that the penalty is not a problem for lawful people.

  12. Re:GPS? by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These same teens/people will likely have something else that causes their accident if not texting.

    However it won't be an easily tracked metric. Public outrage is directly proportional to ease of reporting numbers, not actual danger or risk.

    From personal experience children in a car seat are by far the most distracting thing you can have in a car. Even "girlfriend in a skimpy outfit" is not as distracting.

    Another automotive killer is travel. Simply make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle more than 50 miles from county of registration and that alone will cut accident rates by a considerable amount.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  13. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate by drerwk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Drivers could learn from pilots - 1 fly the plane, 2 fly the plane where you need to go, 3 talk to the people you need to talk to.

    One time I was driving I-5 to LA in the passing lane, which had traffic going above the posted limit. I looked in my rearview and an officer was right on my tail. I expected to get pulled over for speeding at that point, signaled and switched to the slow lane. The officer pulled right up on the tail of the next car which did the same as me. Two more cars followed likewise. The fifth driver did not notice the officer right behind him and in about 30 seconds on came the lights. He probably got a ticket for speeding, but his crime was failure at situational awareness. If that officer was looking to fill a quota any one of us would have done, but I was glad to see the unsafe driver get the ticket.

    1. Re:Aviate, Navigate, Communicate by characterZer0 · · Score: 2

      The officer pulled right up on the tail of the next car

      I was glad to see the unsafe driver get the ticket.

      Wait, the tailgating pig gave himself a ticket?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  14. Re:GPS? by Omegawar · · Score: 2

    And no kids. A screaming 1 year old is a major distraction.

  15. Re:GPS? by hattig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you are doing a manoeuvre that requires some attention, you can:

    1) Not choose to pick up your drink at this time
    2) Zone out of the radio - this is why talk radio is popular, it's mostly a drone that you can zone into when you need something to keep your brain awake, and zone out of when driving is requiring some braining.
    3) Tell other people to shut up, or they will also see that you need to concentrate and will shut up.
    4) You will be looking at the road and mirrors.

    However it appears that people on the phone when driving don't say "I'm driving". I don't know why. The person on the other end doesn't know you are about to do something that requires your full attention. You are compelled to pay attention to their words because you think the call is important (for whatever reason, be it your boss, or your other half nagging). And accidents happen because of this.

  16. Tech Behind the Wheel KILLS by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    Except, of course, if it's integrated into the car, and the manufacturer of that car has spent millions bribing Congress to adopt the paradigm that any amount of tech in a vehicle is perfectly safe so long as it is integrated and the manufacturer got to profit from it.

  17. Re:GPS? by Zerth · · Score: 2

    If people will jailbreak phones so they can remove the carrier crapware, why wouldn't they just remove that feature as well?

  18. Re:Not a tech problem by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

    I agree 100%, it's an attitude problem and people need to grow up and realize that piloting 2+ tons of steel and rubber at legal road speeds is not something to be taken lightly, no matter how easy it is these days.

    Which is precisely why I don't use a bluetooth headset and why my phone doesn't leave my pocket as long as the engine is running. It's also the reason why I buckle my seat belt etc. before I even turn the key.

    I don't care how important people think they are, 99,9% of all phone calls and 100% of all text messages and emails can wait until the destination is reached and the car is stopped. Make it illegal to use any kind of phone (even with a headset), tv, microwave, GPS etc. while the car is moving, and give out special permits to people like doctors who genuinely need to be available 24/7.

    Stock traders and other businessmen can suck it. If they're really that important (they aren't), they probably already have a chauffeur.

    Even better. Somehow make distracted driving looked down upon in society and you'll only need to fine the assholes who already drive drunk.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  19. Re:GPS? by MrTree · · Score: 3, Insightful

    * No cup holders to encourage drinking while driving. Drinking/eating anything is also a distraction.

    Eating and drinker are both distracting behaviors, although not as much as talking on a cell phone.

    * No radios or other music devices. Distractions are distractions.

    The kind of audio distraction caused by radios does little to affect driving attention.

    * Maybe even a ban on talking while in a vehicle. How different, when you get down to it, is talking on a phone and talking to a person next to you. One sideways glance to see their reaction at the wrong moment, blammo, road carnage.

    Passengers tend to share the driver's situational awareness, so they are significantly safer to hold a conversation with than someone on the far end of a cell phone. A sideways glance is no problem - the driver's gaze is often off the road to check, for example, speed.

    See this paper for a good overview of distracted driving behavior:

    http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2008/810787.pdf

  20. Re:GPS? by itsdapead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, if you are reaching this point of trying to not-distract people then you might as well take the next steps:

    True, but texting on a mobile phone, or dialling on a handset, really is in a moronic league of its own c.f. talking to a passenger, popping an M&M into your mouth or even using a hands-free. Most people are incapable of walking in a straight line while texting.

    However, there shouldn't be any need for new legislation - in the UK there's always been "driving without due care and attention", and I'm sure other jurisdictions have similar concepts. The cell-phone ban was just so that politicians could be seen to be doing something about the Sunday headlines, and had the unfortunate side-effect of legitimising hands-free kits. What's needed are less cameras and more actual, adequately trained, police eyeballs looking for real dangerous driving rather than petty speeding (e.g. doing something about the bloody Audi or white van driving 2' behind you because you have the audacity to only be doing 10mph above the limit).

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  21. Re:GPS? by volmtech · · Score: 2

    If we can't see someone we experience more distraction trying to visualize what their expressions are. I find myself concentrating more on what the person I am talking to is saying because I can't get any visual clues, and less on what is happening outside my car.

  22. Re:GPS? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    ...And there are people who will do the exact same thing with phones.

    What we simply need to do is hold people responsible for their own actions regardless of what it was that caused them to have an accident unless it was something with no fault of their own (heart attack, stroke, etc.). No one has ever died because of a drunk driver, high driver or distracted driver, they died because of a reckless driver. If someone is driving recklessly that is a problem no matter what the cause. So let's let adults be adults and know their own limitations. There are some people who shouldn't eat or drink soda when they drive, there are others who could probably do college calculus coursework as they were driving and still be safe.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  23. Oh really. by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the latest hyped up excuse for poor driving. Driving is about making decisions, at 50mph. Teach people to make good decisions and the problem is solved. Sending a txt while going 5mph in a traffic jam is not going to kill anyone.

    So I was in a 3 lane traffic jam at a stop ending a call - I was in the center lane. I looked down to press the button to end my call. The was a bang, I looked up and it took me a good while to figure out what was happening. The car in front (or 2 in front I dunno 'cause I was looking down) of me had left a gap for someone coming out of a parking lot to cross all the lanes to get to a U-turn lane in the median (a 4th lane). The 3rd lane (left of me) had cleared quite a bit, so someone in a truck pulling a trailer was going rather quickly past all the stopped cars in the other 2 lanes. The SUV pulled through my lane into the 3rd lane just in time to get T-boned and pushed sideways a good 70 feet which involved going over the curb and part way around the U-turn before coming to a stop. As traffic started and I passed them I could see the vehicle quite caved in right at the B pillar (closing point of driver door). The entire picture of what had happened did not become clear to me until I drove past, where it would have all been clear from the start had I not been looking down at the critical moment. Let me rephrase this - someone may have died 20 feet in front of me and I didn't even see it or know what happened until I had a chance to piece it all together after the fact. This lapse was due to simply pressing the red button to end a call.

    Now from my imagination: Imagine you're stopped at a red light sending a text. Just as you hit send someone honks loudly from behind you. You look up, the light is green and the car in front of you is already through the intersection. What is your reaction? Most people (you can claim to be special, but most people) will hit the gas to get moving while neglecting to take a few seconds to assess the overall situation (pedestrians, bikes, cross traffic, etc...). That loss of context can be very hazardous. Driving is about knowing what's happening so you can make decisions while sitting in the driver seat - not just at 50mph.

  24. You're all insane by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 2

    I text and drive all the time. Seriously, like every day. While moving at a high rate of speed, even! Jesus, you guys act like I'm murdering babies.

    Truth is, I do it because it's not that dangerous. Most of us can type without looking at the keyboard. In fact, we can type without looking at the screen! I do the same thing to text while driving. Pay attention to the road first, text when it's appropriate. Don't do it when you might hit someone. Empty interstates are a good place. Red lights are decent.

    You just need to teach, in driving school, that you always pay attention to the road first and second, and everything else after that. After that, you can do pretty much anything and drive without much incident.

  25. Tech solutions by miltonw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People will do stupid things. If this were only a tech problem, then perhaps a tech solution would be appropriate -- but it isn't.

    Are we asking Starbucks for "hot drink while driving" solutions? Are we asking McDonald's for "eating food while driving" solutions? Are we asking business owners for "looking for a store" solutions? Are we asking advertisers for "distracted by billboards" solution?

    Until someone comes up with a "stupid drivers who do things instead of driving" solution, there isn't a solution for the "distracted driver" problem.

    The problem isn't tech, the problem is stupid drivers.

  26. Re:GPS? by stillnotelf · · Score: 2

    my niece would always go to sleep after about 20 minutes

    Carcolepsy: best sleep condition ever!