Slashdot Mirror


NHTSA and DOT Want Your Car To Be Able To Disable Your Cellphone Functions

savuporo writes "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Department of Transportation are considering technological solutions for people to stop using their cellphones while driving. Proximity detectors or requiring physical link with the car are the solutions under the scope. From the article: 'NHTSA wants automakers to make it impossible to enter text for messaging and internet browsing while the car is in motion, disable any kind of video functionality and prevent text-based information such as social media content or text messages from being displayed.' Obviously these regulations would need to go beyond cellphones, as laptop, tablet or any other gadget with a 3G data connection or even on a wi-fi hotspot made by your phone would be equally distracting."

77 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. First by thsths · · Score: 5, Insightful

    passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?

    1. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if you differentiate and only disable the driver's phone, how do you stop the drivers borrowing a passenger's phone? There isn't a technological solution to this, only legal ones (which already exist).

    2. Re:First by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Beyond even that, what if im using my cellphone as a hotspot to provide the electronics in my car an internet connection? This is incredibly short sighted.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:First by mjwx · · Score: 2

      passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?

      Passengers know when to shut up.

      People on the other side of the phone dont.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:First by sosume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you ready for a government owned black box in your car which measures your speed and location, taps into your cell phone, monitors your private messages and internet behaviour? Probably illegal to tamper with, all in the interest of the children?

    5. Re:First by Cenan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I absolutely agree, but the focus on phones has got to go. We are not trying to ban the use of phones in cars, we are trying to get the driver to pay attention to driving, and phones (right now) seem to be the biggest culprit. Banning phones in cars still leaves a million - 1 ways to distract a driver.

      Rather than try to restrict the near endless possibilities for distraction, we need technology to ensure a driver's attention on the road. For instance, my phone (S3G) has a rather cool feature called Smart Stay; it basically uses the front camera to detect if I'm still looking at the screen, to help decide if the screen should lock.

      This feature could be made to work for cars as well, detecting where the driver has his/her attention and (akin to seat belts) make an annoying sound, throttle the engine or whatever else seems to be an appropriate for a driver not paying attention. Obviously work needs to be done, but the general idea is there.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    6. Re:First by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?

      Passengers know when to shut up. People on the other side of the phone dont.

      So you wouldn't restrict playing with your passenger's buttons when driving.

    7. Re:First by adolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not if you're a service tech at a modern car dealer: For some makes, having the car have an Internet connection (to communicate with the manufacturer) is a currently useful diagnostic aid during a test drive when attempting to sort out driveability issues.

    8. Re:First by AaronW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not necessarily. For example, my car (Tesla model S) has an always-on 3G Internet connection. It is used for streaming music, maps and Internet (it does not disable the browser while driving). There is talk of charging money for the Internet connection once the WIFI feature is enabled or else allow teathering with a cell phone to provide the connection. The Internet connection is also used to improve voice recognition and for other services. The Internet connection is not just used for browsing or chat/email.

      Then there's also the case where a passenger might want to use the Internet on a laptop.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    9. Re:First by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Maybe this could be used as punishment for drivers who are caught using phones? There have been proposals for breath testing systems to be fitted to cars which are owned by people convicted of DUI offences. Similarly, if you get caught with a phone, phones will no longer work in your car.

    10. Re:First by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?

      The Prius does indeed restrict the front seating passenger from using most of its center panel functions when the car is moving, which is really idiotic because it's smart enough to know there is a passenger in the seat (since it will complain loudly when that same passenger doesn't put his seat belt on).

    11. Re:First by julesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pissing off a few geeks is worth it.

      The problem they'll find is that it isn't really the geeks that'll be pissed off by this. This almost certainly won't apply to public transport (including, I would suspect, licensed public service taxis), so other than people who are actually driving (and therefore perhaps should be restricted from using their phones while the vehicle is in motion) it is the passengers in private vehicles who are most likely to be effected. Who are the people who are frequently passengers in private vehicles and who make above-average use of mobile phones? There are a couple of classes that spring to mind:

      1. Business leaders (the kind who can pay for a chauffeur)
      2. Politicians (the kind who can convince the state to pay for a chauffeur for them, usually on the premise that it leaves them free to attend to important business while in transit)

      This, therefore, is not going to happen.

    12. Re: First by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its clear, even from the summary, that the authorities want to disable specific functions on the phone so that calls to emergency services will still work.

    13. Re:First by FPhlyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I use my phone's hotspot function to provide internet access for my kid's Android tablets and Nintendo DSi devices during long duration trips. Disabling all internet access would be a huge bummer resulting in even more "are we there yet?" situations then I already get. I also frequently stream music from my phone through my car's built-in stereo bluetooth. While we all want to save lives the reality is that "distracted driving" is caused not by technology but by human nature. Take away the tech and we'll just find some other distraction. Driving a car is so "second nature" in American culture that most of don't apply the level of concentration to the task that we should. Ever drive while juggling a hamburger and a soda?

      My personal worst offense was over a decade ago when I pulled out my laptop and played a game of Quake 2 while "driving." In my defense, I was stuck behind an accident in a construction zone where traffic moved MAYBE three full meters during that two hour wait. Other drivers were out of their cars walking around so it seamed like a safe bet to pass the time with a distraction rather than get upset at the situation.

      --
      Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
    14. Re:First by stenvar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I want is for people to not fuck with their phones (or anything else!) while driving ... Other people don't seem to be that intelligent, and telling them why its unsafe doesn't seem to be working.

      What I want is for people not to be arrogant pricks like you; that ain't gonna happen any time soon either.

    15. Re: First by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      Or even, without freak occurences such as stuck accelerators: if you get into a normal accident, and the crash jostles the sensor that says "car in motion" in such a way that it thinks it is still in motion, neither you nor any bystander will be able to call 911 due to that jammer.

    16. Re:First by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I must ask, why do you NEED an internet connection in your car?

      Because I am a good father. The internet connection in the car allowed me to take a six week road trip with my wife and son. A trip that simply could not have happened if I couldn't have worked during the drive time between stops. The trip was both educational and an amazing bonding experience.

    17. Re:First by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      Pissing off a few geeks is worth it.

      You Sir are one of the reasons I think the Second Amendment is worth keeping

    18. Re:First by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Passengers know when to shut up.

      No. They don't.

    19. Re:First by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Informative

      2. Politicians (the kind who can convince the state to pay for a chauffeur for them, usually on the premise that it leaves them free to attend to important business while in transit)

      Nah, they'll just vote an exemption for themselves

    20. Re:First by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? So you think the general population ... most of which are using their cell phones while driving are smart enough to make intelligent decisions themselves ... even though the whole reason this is being brought up is due to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

      I'm an arrogant prick because the evidence says that people are too stupid to pay attention to the road?

      Really?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    21. Re:First by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Almost as ready for a strawman argument where making murder illegal is the first step towards a total police state.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    22. Re:First by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      How did people ever manage without electronic devices to numb their kids' brains?

      The wheels on the bus go round and round...

      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...
      The wheels on the bus go round and round...

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    23. Re:First by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      Actually that would be a slippery slope, not a strawman.

    24. Re:First by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They managed by beating the children into submission. The ipad is a much better approach.

      I disagree. A Windows 8 tablet is a better approach - much heavier than an ipad, so much more effective when used to beat the children into submission.

    25. Re:First by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that people made road trips and had entertainment well before smart phones, tablets or even the Internet was invented, right?

      You really will survive without it. Believe it or not, there was a time when there was no Internet at all! Yet, Human beings still made road trips, and raised their children without killing them. Even were capable of educating themselves.

      I'm really not sure how the tablet your kid is staring at while you were focused on driving helped. You were focused on driving right? Or are you telling us that you are exactly the problem that needs correcting?

      Amazingly enough, they allow women to drive, too, these days. Did it really never occur to you that maybe he was working while his wife drove, and the only other option was not to take the vacation at all? That's the only way I can read the GP.

    26. Re:First by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Chloroform

    27. Re: First by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2

      My last compact car weighed 3985 lbs curb weight and it was German.

      Hmmm... that's about 1.8 metric tons; definitely not what I'd calla a "compact car". My little sports car is just under 1 metric ton. Looking at various German cars on wikipedia that I'd call "compact cars" the weight seems to be around 1.3 metric tons in general.

      Examples: Mercedes A Class, VW Golf.

      That weight looks more like a family car to me - e.g. VW Passat.

      But, as far as I know, the definition of "compact car" is somewhat different in different countries, so it's probably a definition thing more than anything else.

      Where can one get one of these "ton and a half" SUV's?

      The Ford Escape is about that (well, 1.5 metric tons; so a bit over in imperial)... I think that's classed as an SUV...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    28. Re:First by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      ... and this is why children were beaten or forced to work.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:First by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They managed because the kids weren't confined to child seats until they're 13yo (or whatever the new ridiculous age is). On long trips, we'd climb over seats, make faces from the rear-facing trundle seat, read books, play with toys, and sleep laying fully down with only a lap belt (the rear seats had only lap belts).

    30. Re:First by berberine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ever drive while juggling a hamburger and a soda?

      I try not to juggle while driving. It's not really a safe thing to do.

    31. Re:First by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      OK, perhaps you should take a look at accident statistics in the U.S. in order to discover that as cellphone use has increased traffic related deaths have decreased. This does not mean that cellphone use in the car is not dangerous. It just means that it is not something that needs to be "fixed". The fact of the matter is that 16 year olds are going to be dangerous drivers. If they are not doing something stupid with a cellphone when they are driving, they will find something else to do besides pay attention to their driving.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    32. Re:First by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The solution isn't legal, it's social. All those years they spend trying to ban cigarettes, tax them... none of it worked. But the day I heard my niece describe a guy as "gross" for smoking I knew it was doomed as a habit.

    33. Re:First by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Actually yes. However, you apparently think that while the general population is not smart enough to make intelligent decisions for themselves, they are smart enough to make intelligent decisions for everybody else. Because that is what you are asking for. You are asking the general population to make a decision that applies to everyone. If they aren't smart enough to make an intelligent decision for themselves, what makes you think they are smart enough to make an intelligent decision for me?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    34. Re:First by Tom · · Score: 2

      It would be a slippery slope if there were even the faint ghostly remains of some content to it. At best, it's an imaginary potentially unperfectly grippy slightly inclined partial slope. :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    35. Re:First by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      those who give of freedom for temporary security will get neither... dont forget that

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    36. Re:First by haystor · · Score: 2

      You put them in the rumble seat or the bed of the pickup and you can't hear a peep out of them.

      --
      t
    37. Re:First by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They managed because the kids weren't confined to child seats until they're 13yo (or whatever the new ridiculous age is). On long trips, we'd climb over seats, make faces from the rear-facing trundle seat, read books, play with toys, and sleep laying fully down with only a lap belt (the rear seats had only lap belts).

      ...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.

      Which obviously didn't happen in this case, otherwise OP wouldn't have been able to tell the tale. Then, of course, there's the absolute fact that even with all of modern living's fancy safety devices, people still get killed in car crashes. So it goes.

      In case you weren't aware, people die

      every

      single

      day.

      A lot of them, actually, and often in needless circumstances. It's a fact of life: everything dies.

      So, what was the point of your comment? To say that having the fucking state dictate every single tiny detail of our lives is somehow better than living as free men, because there's a slight improvement on the odds you'll be alive for another couple of minutes? Or maybe you just get your rocks off denigrating the position of others? Dunno; I'm not you, and glad for it.

      Here's my point, if I have one: Don't be such an unbearable pussy, that you feel compelled to dictate to others how they should live their lives. It's a real dickhead move, and frankly a lot of us are sick of hearing about how you feel there should be a ban or regulation on everything that scares you.

      Fuckin' grow a pair, brah.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    38. Re:First by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.

      That's not how you do a cost-benefit analysis. "On occasion" can be perfectly acceptable. Exactly what was the risk of a death for a child dying per mile back then, and what is it now? Notice I didn't say, "what is the risk for a child dying when involved in a collision" or anything like that. You have to take into account the chances of getting into a collision in the first place to determine whether adding the safety features are worth the hassle. Additionally, when comparing the numbers, you'll have to correct for other safety features added in cars, such as better crumple zones that are capable of absorbing more of the energy in an impact.

    39. Re:First by flink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They managed because the kids weren't confined to child seats until they're 13yo (or whatever the new ridiculous age is). On long trips, we'd climb over seats, make faces from the rear-facing trundle seat, read books, play with toys, and sleep laying fully down with only a lap belt (the rear seats had only lap belts).

      ...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.

      That's not the point. No one is arguing that better safety is not an improvement over the past. The point is that when you confine a kid they act out more because there is less they can do.

      My 20 month old goes stir crazy because she is still stuck in a rear facing car seat. Maybe when she was an infant she could entertain herself staring at the seat upholstery for an hour, but now she sure can't. So after she gets board of her books, toys, and dolls, we'll pass back an iPhone playing Finding Nemo in guided access mode.

      So if they ever start putting a device in my car that disables the phone, I'll find out where it's located and take a hammer to it.

    40. Re:First by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash.

      Safety isn't desirable at all costs. It is not an improvement to survive if you don't have a chance to live.

      When I grew up, kids were allowed to take small risks, including climbing trees and cliffs, riding the back of the truck with the dogs, whittling and carrying a sharp knife, read about evolution, use regular public transportation to and from school, and lots of other things. We lived. And almost all of us survived quite well, not having been cuddled and restricted.

      Sometimes, the price of increasing long odds is too high.

    41. Re:First by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Someone who is willing to waste $60-80k on a freaking car, doesn't care.

    42. Re:First by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Really? So you think the general population ... most of which are using their cell phones while driving are smart enough to make intelligent decisions themselves ... even though the whole reason this is being brought up is due to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

      So, what's the "overwhelming evidence to the contrary"?

      More traffic fatalities? Nope, traffic fatalities (both on an absolute basis and per mile travelled) have been trending down for several decades, and are at or near all-time lows.

      Alas for the busybodies, there isn't really all that much evidence (outside the lab) that the use of cellphones is causing calamities on our highways...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    43. Re:First by el+jocko+del+oeste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a risk management question. What is the risk of some behavior and what is the cost of mitigating that risk?

      My 13 year-old daughter likes to climb trees. I'll admit to being a bit unnerved seeing her 40 feet up in a tree. But she's cautious, which reduces the risk. And successfully taking on the the challenge adds to her sense of self-confidence and accomplishment, important qualities for a 13 year-old. On balance I find it to be an acceptable risk.

      On the other hand, she wears her seat belt each and every time she gets into a car. No exceptions. The benefits of not wearing a seat belt strike me as being minimal. And a failure to wear a seat belt in a crash dramatically increases the risk of serious injury or death. When I do the analysis, skipping the seat belt is not an acceptable risk.

      Smartphones provide a more difficult case though, largely because of the wide range of behaviors that they enable. Texting while driving? High risk. Using a navigation app? Modest risk. Listening to music? Low risk, unless you need to interact with the music app in some way, in which case the risk increases-- maybe a little, maybe a lot, depending on the quality of the user interface and what you're trying to do.

      And that's just from the driver's perspective. A passenger can do almost anything with a smartphone, short of hitting the driver in the head with it, and not increase the risk of a dangerous crash. All in all, it makes it very difficult to make blanket statements about the risk from smartphones in an automobile. And therefore very difficult to regulate in a reasonable way.

    44. Re:First by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Even if you differentiate and only disable the driver's phone, how do you stop the drivers borrowing a passenger's phone? There isn't a technological solution to this, only legal ones (which already exist)."

      Speaking of existing, there is another problem here: the fact that studies have broken any demonstrable cause-effect relationship between (voice) cell phone use and automobile accidents.

      There is a correlation, to be sure. But actual studies done to show a causative effect have come up short. But it's even more solid than that, because real-world data show the same thing: where no-cell-phone laws have been passed, there has been no significant reduction in automobile accidents. And in those areas that subsequently repealed those laws, again there was no significant difference in accident rates.

      The actual cause is likely an outside factor. For example: it is very possible that people who tend to drive distractedly also have a tendency to use cell phones for their source of distraction. But when they don't have cell phones, they are simply distracted by other things.

      I bring this up because it has been shown that laws against (voice) cell phone use while driving do a significant amount of bad (can't make calls while on the highway, and so on, which has very significant health and safety implications), while not, in exchange, doing any tangible good.

      I should also note that other studies have found absolutely no difference in "distracted driving" between so-called "hands-free" use and holding the phone up to your ear.

  2. Driver not the only one in the car by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So how would this proposed system distinguish between the driver using a phone and a passenger using a phone? It's not reasonable to forbid every passenger (who's not driving and has no need to not be distracted) from using any device while someone else is driving.

    1. Re:Driver not the only one in the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is about the US, not whatever country you live in where people drive with passengers. That's why the story has a nice US flag next to it. The idea that passengers would be inconvenienced is laughable, it's not like anyone ever drives with other people in their car.

    2. Re:Driver not the only one in the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget the fact that it won't be able to distinguish between the driver using a phone and the driver using a phone because he has an emergency and need to.

    3. Re:Driver not the only one in the car by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you block the kids in the back seat too, you might increase the driver's distraction considerably.

    4. Re:Driver not the only one in the car by Cenan · · Score: 2

      So, what is really needed is a one seated car with no gadgets installed and which block cell phone traffic. CityEl, this one has 1 seat and not enough room for you to actually move your hands, let alone use your phone - and certainly no room for kids.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    5. Re:Driver not the only one in the car by stenvar · · Score: 3, Funny

      They will pass a law requiring the kids not to distract the driver! That will fix it! Right after the law requiring kids not to scream their lungs out on flights! It's just that evil conservatives are currently blocking this legislation right now because big business and gun lobby!

    6. Re:Driver not the only one in the car by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      not enough room for you to actually move your hands

      Yeah, hands can be pretty distracting too... especially if you spot a hot stud on the sidewalk...

    7. Re:Driver not the only one in the car by ozydingo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great, so now drivers will start holding their phones over the passenger seat to use them, drawing their gaze even further from the road. Don't act like it won't happen.

  3. Tech solution for a social problem by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're doing it all wrong. You can't solve a social problem with technological features.

    There's no way you can make a car that will stop someone from tapping on their ipad, or putting on their makeup.

    If you try, they'll just get pissed off, disable the feature, and do it even more to spite you.

    The solution is to fix the culture to make it socially unacceptable.

    Have the law enforcement officers doing their job.

    Jail time for any driver caught texting while in motion.

    1. Re:Tech solution for a social problem by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're doing it all wrong. You can't solve a social problem with technological features.

      I don't know ... deodorant does a pretty good job

    2. Re:Tech solution for a social problem by richlv · · Score: 2

      There's no way you can make a car that will stop someone from ... putting on their makeup.

      faraday cage built into the frame of the car.

      Simple.

      ...an example of techies failing to understand why social problems are hard to solve with technical means ;)

      --
      Rich
    3. Re:Tech solution for a social problem by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're doing it all wrong. You can't solve a social problem with technological features.

      No, but you can mitigate it. The problem is real, people are dying on the street today because someone checked his Twitter or Mail while driving. If a technological feature can reduce the number of these incidents by x% - well, ask the x% who would otherwise be dead if they think it's worth it.

      The solution is to fix the culture to make it socially unacceptable.

      While I agree on that, we do not have a formula on how to do that. Some stuff that we outlaw is also uncool, but some stuff is cool exactly because it's illegal. Laws do not define what's socially acceptable, and we don't know how exactly to change a culture.

      The technology solution might not be as good, but at least we know how it can be done. That's a real practical advantage.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Tech solution for a social problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have the law enforcement officers doing their job.

      Jail time for any driver caught texting while in motion.

      So close, and yet so far. Guess what? If LEOs did their jobs, we wouldn't need cellphone laws at all. Drivers would simply be ticketed for driving like an asshole, regardless of reason, and not ticketed if they aren't driving like an asshole. See, here's the fundamental problem with a cellphone law: some people drive better while talking on the phone than do other people while focusing on nothing but driving. If the goal is to prevent incompetent driving, we need to institute some serious driver testing and retesting, and take away licenses from people who fail it. But that means that the vast majority of the elderly would have their licenses taken away, and they vote.

      When you propose enforcement of a bad law, you are expressing a bad idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Tech solution for a social problem by johanw · · Score: 2

      In The Netherlands they have solved that easily: it's just forbidden to hold a mobile phone in your hand while driving. Wether you are using it for calling, texting, VIP, Twitter or selecting an mp3 is not relevant.

  4. Re:Can't be done. by spire3661 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually a reasonable GPS system already stores the map internally......just sayin. The only reason we have to stream maps is up until now we couldnt fit them on the device trivially.

    --
    Good-bye
  5. Let's go even further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's 2014. You enter your car. Your watch stops -- it poses too much of a distraction. Mandatory reaction time enhancing drugs are automatically injected into your blood as you turn the ignition.

    The car revs once, but doesn't move. A breathalyzer test is administered automatically by the car, followed by a urine test and a routine vision screening. Small electrical signals are passed through the chair to test your reflexes while a brain scan is run to check for any impure thoughts or intentions.

    Finally, drive mode is unlocked. Your maximum speed is set by your insurance provider -- a leisurely 10mph. An artificial intelligence watches you drive your car via. video link to monitor your driving patterns. Your cellphone is disabled.

    Time to hit the open road.

  6. Sounds useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I were a cop, I'd be happy to use this tech to stop everyone from talking about or recording me assault people. Imagine how useful this technology would be to dictators. Well done Obama. Not only have you just created a data trove for organized crime to blackmail every US citizen, you are about to create the technology that helps dictators repress rebels.

  7. Chauffeur's by zippo01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think getting everyone a personal Chauffeur is the answer. Fixes the unemployment problem and the cell phone problem. Well other then the chauffeur texting but that's easily solved with electric shocks.

    1. Re:Chauffeur's by azadrozny · · Score: 2

      That would be cool, but Trunk Monkeys might be a cheaper option.

  8. emergency calls allowed? by crutchy · · Score: 2

    can you still call 911 if your phone gets disabled and you're involved in some sort of accident (or you witness one)?

  9. Re:Can't be done. by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Modern GPS devices also pull in real-time traffic information to route it's users around traffic jams, accidents or other problems.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  10. Re:Can't be done. by julesh · · Score: 2

    Fitting a map of a reasonably sized area on a mobile device has been possible for a very long time. For instance, the UK section of OpenStreetMap is reasonably complete and takes up only around 500MB, which has been easily within the capabilities of a low cost mobile device for 5+ years now, which is to say longer than most map streaming services have been around.

    The only real reason for streaming is that it lets people download and install an app quickly, and provides for seamless map updates. Neither of these reasons is going away any time soon.

  11. Re:Cut off our nose to spite our face ... by discord5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, I have to side with NHTSA since I'd rather have my personal space invaded by a law than I would have it invaded by someone's ton and a half SUV because they were texting some cat picture instead of driving.

    I don't have much faith in solutions like this because it's one of those problems which are social problems, not technological ones. If we disregard the technological feasibility of this, for the sake of argument, we're going to have people who are going to look for ways to circumvent this measure (and they will find it, have no worries about that). On top of that, any car and phone which isn't equipped with such a system still allows for people to call/text while driving.

    A much better solution to this type of problem in my opinion is to raise awareness, make the whole thing punishable with a fine and for repeat offenders include a revocation of the drivers license, and actively enforce it. In the beginning you'll have people who will blatantly ignore these measures, but once they start getting hit with fines most of them will stop. And just like with parking fines, you'll have people who blatantly ignore the law, as with any other kind of restriction they feel that doesn't apply to them, which is where the revocation of the license comes into place.

    On my morning commute which often involves 20km/h freeway "happiness", I've seen plenty of people use non-technological means to distract them from the task at hand. People reading the newspaper while driving, doing crossword puzzles, having breakfast, doing their make-up, etc etc etc. Hell, I've even seen someone miss a green light because they were too busy playing with their kids (an admirable feat, just not in traffic). You don't solve those kinds of things with a bit of electronics in the dashboard.

    It's not the calling and texting that is the problem, that's just a symptom of the underlying problem. The problem is that people aren't paying attention as they're hurtling down the road at breakneck speeds. There's no chip you can place in the dashboard that makes people pay attention to what they're doing.

  12. Al Capone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Want? It's not a question of "want". It's a question of safety, expediency and convenience.

    Why, next time I stuff someone in the trunk of my car I won't even have to find and take their phones. Just think how much time and hassle this would save.

  13. Re:Can't be done. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2
    We could fit the map on the device. Even my old Tomtom has enough memory for the entire maps of Europe.

    However, an internet connection is great for getting up to date maps...

  14. car manufacturer lobbying by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

    they want to sell in car phones and entertainment systems.

    disable all tablets, smartphones etc in car-> you have to buy bolted in tablets from the car manufacturer.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  15. For pity's sake... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not.
    A.
    Technology.
    Problem.


    Make using a mobile phone punishable by confiscating the car immediately (as it is in the UK for driving uninsured) and a mandatory appearance in court, punishment being revocation of license.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  16. Brilliant by sjames · · Score: 2

    Near the end TFA suggests detecting when the driver is using the phone but not the passenger. Just brilliant, now we'll have drivers leaning into the passenger seat texting.

  17. Re:Dumb, Dumber and now what? by DamonHD · · Score: 2

    You shouldn't be doing either as they disrupt other people's enjoyment of the film, but one-sided conversations are demonstrably significantly more difficult to ignore and thus annoying.

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  18. Stigmatize it... by stove · · Score: 2

    Like drunk driving. I don't know about where y'all are, but driving drunk is a step above child molestation where I am.

    It's just right now, lots of people are doing it, so there's a safety in a herd.

    Yes, accept that the same rules (no problems if income is large, if political power is great) that apply to DD apply to "driving-while-texting,"

    --
    Ack!
  19. Don't be such a nervous nellie by Medievalist · · Score: 2

    Ever drive while juggling a hamburger and a soda?

    I try not to juggle while driving. It's not really a safe thing to do.

    Wimp. Start out with hamburgers, add the soda and fries once you've got that down, and you'll be juggling chainsaws on the Interstate in no time!

  20. Hang up and drive by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many of you have received a check from the insurance company to replace a vehicle that was totaled as a direct result of phone use? I have. Trust me...hanging upside down, covered in broken glass, does not make for a fun afternoon.

    You cannot multitask nearly as well as you think you can. You might want to look out the windows once in a while, rather than looking at the phone. Unlike the bimbo that t-boned me.

    If you self-important phone users would just put the goddamn phone down and actually drive the car, we wouldn't need initiatives like this.