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."

Comments

First

[thsths]

passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:First

[spire3661]

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.

Re:First

[sosume]

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?

Re:First

[Cenan]

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.

Re:First

[adolf]

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.

Re:First

[stephanruby]

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).

Re:First

[julesh]

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.

Re:First

[FPhlyer]

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.

Re:First

[Belial6]

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.

Re:First

[ArsenneLupin]

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

Re:First

[paiute]

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...

Re:First

[FireFury03]

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.

Re:First

[Culture20]

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).

Re:First

[berberine]

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.

Re:First

[Charliemopps]

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.

Re:First

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:First

[LateArthurDent]

...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.

Re:First

[arth1]

...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.

Driver not the only one in the car

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Tech solution for a social problem

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Tech solution for a social problem

[Tom]

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.

Re:Tech solution for a social problem

[drinkypoo]

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.

Let's go even further

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Chauffeur's

[zippo01]

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.

Re:Cut off our nose to spite our face ...

[discord5]

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.