Slashdot Mirror
The Case For a Safer Smartphone
itwbennett writes: "According to the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, people who text and drive increase their chances of 'safety-critical events' by a multiple of 23.2. And new research is constantly rolling out, showing the same thing: 'We can't handle the visual, manual, and cognitive commitment of using a phone while driving,' writes blogger Kevin Purdy. What's needed, Purdy suggests, isn't more laws that will go ignored, but phones that know enough to stop giving us the distractions we ask them for: 'I think the next good phone, the next phone that makes some variant of the claim that it "Fits the way you live," needs to know that we don't know what is good for us when it comes to driving. We want to be entertained and shown new things while doing the often mundane or stressful task of driving. More specifically, those phones should know when we are driving, quiet or otherwise obscure updates from most apps, and be able to offer their most basic functions without needing to turn on a screen or type a single letter.'"
but that would be too much to ask.
...you can learn to put a fucking cell phone down.
We don't need smarter apps to tell us to ignore a phone while driving.
We don't need smarter six-packs. Or smarter makeup. Or smarter food containers. All of these things should not be mixed while steering a ton of steel down the freeway.
We we need are smarter drivers on the road who fucking know better.
And I agree. We don't need more laws. What we need is more real consequences like jail time for offenders so that they may wise up. Clearly current methods are not working, and Darwin award winners in this case take innocent lives with them.
Until someone can explain to me how the number of accidents per million miles travelled has steadily declined for almost two decades, yet cellphones are supposedly causing people to drive like they're intoxicated or worse, I won't put much stock in these "safety-critical events" claims.
Better known as 318230.
Why do we keep trying to solve this problem with technology? Until technology exists that only affects the driver, but not any of the passengers, this attempt is useless...And if this is advertised as a "feature" of the phone, it will be turned off. Sure, it might be nice, and might even save lives, but no one is going to put their phone down.
I never thought I would be a person to advocate a law to restrict personal freedoms but I think it's time to require smartphone vendors to disable texting when driving speeds are detected. This is not about protecting people from themselves but about protecting other people [on the road]. Texting while driving is unbelievably dangerous. I'm sure someone can come up with way to differentiate a driver from a passenger so that passengers can still be permitted to text. If not then so be it.
How are these going to differentiate between drivers and passengers? And if, as many studies are finding, even talking hands free involves the same risk as texting/etc, does that mean all phone usage would have to be turned off? How about using cell phones as GPS nav devices, something I do often myself, are actual GPS systems somehow magically less distracting? Do we ban all screens in the driver's view, including radios, nav devices, and the instrument panel? I find passengers distracting sometimes, how do they impact accident rates? Or is this getting a bit ridiculous... - HEX
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
When I go feature shopping for a new phone, automatically preventing me from doing shit is not going to be high on the list.
needs to know that we don't know what is good for us when it comes to driving
A) How does it know if you are a passenger or not.
B) Phones that don't do what we want when we want are considered "broken" by most people, not "helpful".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
several of my apps respond to voice. Admittedly still trying to get that right since they respond to what's playing the radio.
My new phone is better.
Its a brave new world
I'm not sure how much my phone, and those connected to it, I'd like to know.
have to see how it goes
The main problem is that we are human being, that we are *NOT* robot.
As human beings we are the product of millions of years of evolution - an evolution that did not encounter _any_ form of electronic gadgets until very recently.
The fact that we can drive a car (or any vehicles) is not because we *adapt* to the way the car operate, but it is another way around.
We engineer the vehicles so that they can become our tool, and the operation of that tool is *within* our range of capability.
While using cellphone (and now smartphone) have been accused of causing a lot of accidents, they are not the only distraction. Long before the advent of the cellphone, a lot of traffic accidents were caused by drivers adjusting their radio (either looking for station of turning up/down the volume), or adjusting the seat, or the air condition, or whatever.
It is thus evidenced that we human beings are not made to be effective "multi-tasking" device
And smartphones are not the only culprit - I have known drivers who were so distracted by their on-board sat nav devices such as tomtom (and other brands) they drove their car into poles, walls, and so on
Personally when I drive, I drive. If I have to adjust my seat, my mirrors, my radio, or whatever, I stop my car at the roadside (or any other safe place) to make the adjustment, and then continue my journey.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
People need to stop distracting themselves while driving. Better yet, make sure that anyone who causes damage, injury, or deaths due to their negligence while driving is fully prosecuted under the law. It's no different than driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Driving a vehicle requires responsibility as a driver.
Let's not kid ourselves. People will just root their phones and bypass any restrictions put in place to block access to the phone while driving. And how the hell would a phone know the difference between a passenger sitting in a car and a driver?
At it's heart, this really isn't a technology problem, but a societal one. We need to crack down on this sort of stuff, so people understand that it's simply not worth the risk to break the law. It would be awesome if software or hardware could fix all those meatware-related problems, but that's not the world we live in.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Here's the problem: we've tried to make people into better drivers since the automobile was invented. It hasn't worked. You can't change human nature.
People still drive drunk, they still drive distracted. The main reason fatalities have dropped is only because cars are safer.
We don't need smarter drivers. We need smarter cars ... or specifically, self-driving cars. Take the human entirely out of the equation, and only then will you see a real difference.
We'll have self-driving cars on the road long before anyone invents a smartphone that "knows what's good for you". And when that happens, the problem of distracted driving will become completely moot.
How would the phone differentiate between the driver and passengers? How about passengers on a train? I can't see how this would work without causing a huge swath of collateral damage.
A phone that can tell the difference between a passenger, driver, or someone just generally confused/distracted would be a fancy phone indeed. I feel there is no elegant solution to such a problem and the cost-benefit of a tech-based solution would be meager at best.
Have a small amount of C-4 explosive in the phone. If the phone is switched on when the velocity is greater than 30 mph *BOOM*.
And instead of airbags, we should also have daggers sticking out of our steering wheels, poised directly at our hearts. That way people will only be able to drive like assholes once.
Darwinian evolution is our friend. Let's use it!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
...but knows when to cockpunch you for driving like an idiot would be a boon to mankind.
One way would be turn on the phone's front camera when driving speeds are detected and use facial recognition algorithms to detect when the person is driving...for example one way would be to require the person to stare at the phone for a minimum amount of time...and also keep looking at the phone. Another method would be to require two-handed dexterity tests that can't be done while driving. I realize all of these might actually increase the risk from die-hard driving texters since it would distract them even more.
How would the phone know who is driving? Does that mean passengers can't text in a moving car?
The Moto X, or an enhanced version of it? In addition to the now-standard voice control, it automatically detects when I'm driving and goes into a "driving mode" that will suppress some notifications and use text-to-speech for calls and texts.
vibrate mode. ...
don't want to go there
AT&T Drive Mode
Motorola Assist
Apps like these seem to do most everything the blogger is looking for:
It hasn't worked..
This is complete bullshit. Driving has been getting safer for 40 years and the trend is even longer and more obvious if you report fatalities per mile driven.
People still drive drunk
Drunk driving is down, even if you use the inflated "alcohol related" numbers.
Here's the problem: we've tried to make people into better drivers since the automobile was invented. It hasn't worked
No, actually we have not done that at all. What we've done is try to make our vehicles more crash-resistant and improve things like road markings and construction of the surfaces. But we still do nothing more than hand you a written test any idiot can pass, and give you a driving test a well-trained chimp can 'ace', and turn you loose on the roads.
As for the smartphones, the entire idea is just stupid, idiotic nanny-state bullshit. The people suggesting such things should be required to wear a smart catheter, so their car can check their bladder level before allowing them on the road, and a rectal probe to make sure a bowel movement is not imminent.
This is the real problem. Your phone furthers your own bourgeois material individualism. It must be re-purposed to better serve the collective.
Damn, the safety nazi's are more anoying than the bitcoin pushers.
seriously, this redirecting to BETA even after I type in www instead is getting REALLY FUCKING OLD.
I don't buy this "it's just human nature" argument.
The prevalence of cell phone use while driving is much greater than that of driving drunk. It is not because it is less of a "human nature". It is because there are stronger deterrents.
If people faced similar penalties to those of DUI (jail time, loss of driving privileges for extended periods of time, etc) for having their hands on the phone while driving, you can bet "human nature" would change accordingly.
Here's the problem: we've tried to make people into better drivers since the automobile was invented. It hasn't worked. You can't change human nature.
Yes you can, you just need to be tougher.
Start putting people in prison for a couple of weeks if you catch them texting/driving. No arguments, mandatory sentence for anybody caught red-handed. The word will soon go around.
Jail time doesn't dissuade gang-bangers (a lot of them enjoy being in prison) but it sure as hell dissuades normal people.
Or, send them to morgues...to look at some people who texted/drove. They need to know that it *does* have consequences.
No sig today...
We need enforcement of current laws. I have never, never, seen anyone pulled over for talking or texting on the phone. Let alone charged for it.
You need to go to Germany. The Autobahns are full of police cars. You can drive at any speed you like. Burn past one at 200mph? No problem.
Tailgate? Flash lights at people? Drive like a moron in any way and they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks.
No sig today...
Aviation human-factors people call this the "head-down time" problem - pilot looking at panel for too long. Big efforts are made to minimize head-down time during takeoff, approach, and landing. In combat aircraft, huge efforts are made to eliminate it outright, with heads-up displays and all essential controls needed during combat on throttle and stick. Pilot training emphasizes these issues.
Car UI people are just starting to get a clue about this. Early car interfaces were just awful. BMW's original iDrive is considered a classic example of how not to do it. There have some better interfaces since, but the tendency to emulate phones and do everything through a touchscreen is a step backwards.
Phone people have no clue at all. They assume they own the user's attention.
I feel there is no elegant solution to such a problem and the cost-benefit of a tech-based solution would be meager at best.
How about pulling over and stopping to enable the phone?
No sig today...
Driving is not a mundane task. As long as people treat it like that, they will be donating organs and keeping the car body repair industry blooming. Even if we're not using a phone, having a conversation is so distracting that the intense task of keeping a lump of metal hurling along at speeds our brain never was meant to comprehend is severely compromised and chances of an error potentially resulting in a crash are increased close to the same amount as when we're on the phone. Holding the device isn't going to matter much, we're just as screwed if we're concentrating on a passenger or trying to comprehend the squeaking of a hands free kit.
Perceived danger is key here. We tend to think there is no danger in doing this, because none of our senses alert us of anything (possibly) going wrong. Make the seat belts pop loose, let a spike appear from the steering wheel and make the car rumble if drivers appear distracted. That will make them aware they are crossing a line that quickly leads to a situation they can in no way react to in time, if they notice it at all before they have an accident. Their sense of danger will be triggered and they will avoid getting to that point in the future, or or ignore it and become another statistic.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
The ultimate fix isn't more jail time [1], because you can toss a ton of people in jail, and there is a drunk texter right behind them. The ultimate fix is going to be autopiloted cars.
[1]: Well, unless you are a Corrections Corporations of America stockholder which is enjoying a stock rise that is actually better than Apple, percentage-wise.
when they get autonomous cars. not one second before.
I'm tired of the increasingly pussified society. There are risks to life, and we will never be able to eradicate all of the risks. Deal with it. Some people with thrive, some people will fuck up and die. Survival of the fittest works GREAT.
911 Operator: "911. What's your emergency?"
Sobbing voice: "I just can't take it anymore. I need someone to talk to."
911 Operator: "That's OK ma'am. I'm here to talk to you. What's your location?"
Simpering voice: "I'm stuck in traffic on the intersate. It seems like hours since I talked to anyone and my phone won't let me call anyone but you."
911 Operator: "You'll be fine ma'am. We're trained to deal with cell phone withdrawl victims. A nice highway patrol officer is on his way to talk to you in person. How long have it been since you made a phone call ma'am?"
Anguished response: "I don't know. I left the office at 5:00 and talked to BFF until I got in my car but the phone dropped the call as soon as I started the engine. What time is it now?"
911 Operator: "It's now 5:15 you poor dear. You've been without cell phone contact for at least 10 minutes. I'll send the paramedics as well as the highway patrol."
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
We need to teach rational thinking in school. Stop indoctrinating passive consumers and start training people to THINK about their environment. Of course then people would start questioning those in power, and that isn't wanted.
It's not the phones that need to change. It's the driving that needs to take next step in evolution. Restricting something, punishing everyone, just because we cannot solve problems otherwise is bad for innovation (the same way marketing and business kills innovation)
First football and now texting - what will VT researchers ruin next, apple pie? sex? sex while eating apple pie?
there is nothing about a modern car that would be intuitive to a cave man.
We adapt to things all the time. Its part of being an intelligent animal.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
how about a car that extends a 4" spike from the steering wheel every time it sense you fscking around with your phone.
Sounds good to me.
No sig today...
Drunk driving has dropped a lot
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The problem with very harsh penalties (and/or stricter licensure requirements (holy shit, why does Firefox think licensure is not a word?)) is that for a very large portion -- perhaps even a majority -- of the American population, driving is not really optional. No driving means no way of getting to work because of shitty or totally absent public transportation, and no getting to work means no paying your bills. Even if we are willing to ruin someone's life over distracted driving, the aggregate effect on the economy would be devastating. The real "societal solution" is to first address the reality that not everyone should be a driver and come up with alternatives for those people rather than telling them "too bad, you're fucked". At that point, we can start imposing a much higher standard of driver education and much harsher penalties, and it will be what it should be -- simple revocation of the privilege of driving -- rather than an act that can potentially be financially ruinous far out of proportion to the offense.
Don't change the phones. Don't change the cars. Instead, change the liability laws.
In an accident, a driver who was using a phone or other electronic communication device should be presumed to be grossly negligent. The presumption could be rebutable, but that would require the driver to prove he or she was not using any such device. With gross negligence, the law should require the automobile insurance company to cancel the driver's policy. The law should also prohibit a grossly negligent driver from collecting any insurance benefit but not prohibit the driver's victims from being compensated.
Yes, there are uninsured drivers. Where I live, the police will often confiscate their cars if they are stopped for even a minor traffic violation. Thus, there is serious incentive to be insured or else not drive.
By the way, the reason we have so many, many laws is that not enough people will do the right thing. Laws set the minimum standard for behavior. When too many individuals treat that as the maximum standard, they are inviting new laws to be passed to raise the standard.
" What we need is more real consequences like jail time for offenders so that they may wise up."
Agreed. We don't need apps. Whenever someone gets in a accident, see if they were on the air at the time and if they were, crucify them.
Smarter transportation options?
How about passengers on a train?
Um, GPS.
Do you have any idea how quickly GPS murders a cellphone battery? If I had to have that on every time I was carpooling, I'd never make it home before the damn thing died.
You mean something like this ?
Or we could cut off their hands! That would work, right? ...mandatory sentences, my ass. Haven't we had enough of "zero tolerance" rules already? They're much worse than the problems they purport to solve.
well if you've never seen it, I guess it's never happened
Who is We? Did the researchers have a mouse in their pockets during this study ?
The problem lies, in part, with what I guess you could call the aesthetic of multitasking. We love to think that we're good at it, but -- as research has proven over and over [warning: first link is a pdf download] -- we are actually really shitty at it. The same is true of driving. I remember as a kid riding in my dad's car, how he would try to change the channel on the radio, or do something with the A/C, and immediately start veering the car off the road. At stoplights, the minute he stopped thinking about it, his foot came off the brake and the car would roll out into the intersection.
I don't think fixing cars or cell phones is going to get to the root of the problem. The root is that people think they can do more than one thing at a time and not trip over their own damn feet. Since changing the culture seems out of the question, no amount of technological fixes is going to save us from trying to do more than we're cognitively equipped to do.
we have the concept of "airplane" mode. what's so hard about coding up a "driver" mode? oh wait... it's illegal to use a phone whilst driving, so "driver" mode would basically be synonymous with the "off" button.... :)
I dont use my mobile while driving. But i know enough idiots do.
So lets build a safer car. The technology is there. The typical accidents which happen due to reduced attention (like changing lanes unintentionally, not reacting to bearking light of the car in front or a pedestrian entering the road) can be addressed well by existing off-the-shelf technology. Right now these things (radar, automatic breaking) are sold in premium cars. The reason for this is not because these are so expensive to built, but because its is the best strategy for carmakers to first milk the high-end segment (with nearly arbitrary earnings/revenue) and then turn to the rest of the market.
However, if you make things mandatory for all new cars, then the price for the new car goes up by a few hundred bucks, but the insurance will go down.
As and extreme measure the car could reduce the maximum speed automaticlly once it detects that the driver is using a mobile phone or, in general, not looking at the road. Tracking eye movements is well proven technology.
Mobile phones *could* make much of driving safer than it is today instead of making it more dangerous. For the first time, we have devices which be an effective co-pilot (mapping, traffic, entertainment, communication) and yet most of them are unusable in a voice-only mode. Part of that is standardization - every app requires a different set of commands, or an incomplete set of commands. Part of it is parochialism - OS developers allowing only their own offspring apps (most of which are, at best, middling compared to 3rd party) integration with the OS. This speaks nothing of the hideous integration with head units in cars, both OEM and aftermarket, which have the same problems - and don't even get me started on the microphones in cars.
Nobody seems to have really put a team together that has been tasked with making the experience safe for use in a car. They've bolted on weird, disfigured additions that make demos possible but which are not really useful in regular usage. It needs to be a core functional operating mode.
FWIW, I don't consider a ban on personal computers useful in cars. The distractions of text messages and the idiot watching movies is no different than the woman putting on lipstick or the guy reading a paperback while driving, and the presence of music and navigation and communication is no different than the music and navigation that gets built into head units today and the husband jabbering away or the kids yelling at each other in the back seat. Until we are no longer driving it's better to manage distractions than think we can eliminate them.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Dead wrong. Driver mode should be a UI mode which is tuned for hands and (mostly) eyes free usage. Allowing communication, navigation, and entertainment (audio) to seamlessly be integrated with the automotive head unit. The use of simpler prompts keyed through the steering wheel (like volume on head units or set/coast/resume cruise control) and large format feedback/UI viewable with peripheral vision.
Phones *could* make the driving experience safer by bypassing the distraction of the modern touchscreen headunit which is mounted way outside of peripheral vision. But because there is no dedicated mode, it's simply not suited for the task. Yet.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Why would you want to pull over the let your passenger send a text?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Tailgate? Flash lights at people? Drive like a moron in any way and they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks.
Isn't flash-to-pass what they do in every civilized nation? If you're flashing someone in the passing lane in Germany, aren't they the ones at risk of the ton of bricks approach? Unlike the USA, where the cops will pull up behind someone in the fast lane, sit behind them for ages, then go ahead and pass them on the right and just drive on without ticketing the fucks?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Arguably, we have not properly adapted to cars. Traffic accidents are consistently among the top 3 causes of death in a bunch of countries. So, reponding to the OP, we are fucking dumbasses and that's that. Of course, self driving cars seem to be a much better alternative to a phone that enters silent mode when being driven around. Solve "driving" and you atuomatically solve "phone use while driving".
For many just the act of talking while driving is a distraction.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Isn't flash-to-pass what they do in every civilized nation?
Nope, that would be coercion ("Nötigung").
We need cars to have safe places to hold the cell phone, possibly tied to the car's audio. While many modern cars have a USB connection to the car stereo and for recharging a cell phone, there is no safe place to deposit your cell phone so it can continue to give directions or be voice controlled. The result is a mad scramble to put your phone down somewhere in the right orientation so it will continue to give good directions. Or worse, flailing around to run your finger across the "accept this call" slider without crashing the car. That part is not helped by voice->text systems, or an ear bud.
We get more and more strict rules about what we're allowed to do while driving (drinking, speeding, multitasking...)
This only leads to limits to our freedom while the only benefits are marginally lower fatalities in biased statistics designed with the purpose of presenting improvements.
I'm afraid I've seen some very dangerous maneuvers of people pulling off to take a phone call. I'm afraid I've even done them when I was on call and on my way to an urgent job site, and had to reset my priorities for taking such calls.
But we still do nothing more than hand you a written test any idiot can pass, and give you a driving test a well-trained chimp can 'ace', and turn you loose on the roads.
That might be true in the US. It's not so in much of Europe.
As for the smartphones, the entire idea is just stupid, idiotic nanny-state bullshit. The people suggesting such things should be required to wear a smart catheter, so their car can check their bladder level before allowing them on the road, and a rectal probe to make sure a bowel movement is not imminent.
Sounds a bit like keeping people from starting fires by accident by only giving them matches that won't strike.
What I really want to know is this: How is the phone going to be able to tell whether I'm the driver or a passenger?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
In several states (Colorado, Connecticut, for example) it is perfectly legal to drink a beer while driving.
Sadly, of course, there are many people who cannot drive safely even if they are not eating/drinking/phoning/etc - they are just bad drivers. And if they cause an accident, it will get written up in the papers as "lost control of their vehicle" and they will generally not be charged with anything. That needs to change too.
When I had a T-Mobile G1 phone with the lovely five-row hardware keyboard AND prior to "no texting and driving" laws going into place, I could cruise down a highway with low to moderate traffic, texting away for the entire ride, and still watch everything going on around me. I did this regularly. I could see every brake light and every erratic movement. I could also easily drop my phone and jerk the wheel if someone nearby got way too unstable. I'd hold the phone at the top of the wheel with both hands on the wheel and the phone at the same time, and my field of view included both the tiny phone screen and the massive windshield.
Hardware keyboards made this relatively safe, as I could type text very accurately without looking except to check periodically. No five-second distractions. On-screen keyboards ruined this; now I have to deal with an inaccurate touchscreen and pray that my auto-correction works properly (and that I didn't hit a letter that auto-corrected to the wrong word!) Texting while driving became a traffic ticket, on top of the demise of the hardware keyboard. Now I can't text at all; it's not safe because I'd have to hide it and on-screen keyboards are difficult to use without a great deal of focus.
People don't stop texting while driving when it's illegal. They get smart and do the texting well out of view of an officer, which means you have the long distraction of on-screen keyboards and looking far away from your driving environment to read and write combined. The perfect storm of texting while driving, and it's the drive for thin phones and banning texting while driving that caused it. Then cops do this shit which illustrates the utter ridiculousness of the situation. If you have to buy big pimpin' SUVs to catch people texting while driving, maybe you should consider whether you're attacking the root of the problem or just one of the symptoms.
You can't stop people from texting while driving, so my solution is as follows. Drivers would need to not text when in heavy traffic or poor weather, which I think is really stupid in the first place and should be common sense. Phones need to return to slide-out 4-5 row hardware keyboards which allow the typing to happen without requiring concentration on it. Texting while driving should be made legal as long as it happens in such a way that the driver's eyes are still within the general "windshield field of view" while doing it, which means hands would have to be on the wheel and peripheral vision would be doing its job.
This would be the safest combination. You will never stop people from texting while driving. Punishment is not a deterrent. No one thinks they're going to get in trouble for minor shit like this until they actually do; why not greatly reduce the risk involved instead of increasing it with laws that ban it? Then again, they still haven't understood this concept about marijuana and other currently illegal drugs, so I suppose we should expect no less.
Most Americans may "need" to drive to work. But most don't need to be on a cell phone while they are driving.
The only safe assumption is that all logged in /. users are the same person.
You want a machine to wipe your ass for you as well? Driving is a human function. Self drive cars, NO! Move to the city and take public transport if you want to text on your commute. I hope your phone gets stolen right out of your hands in this case as well.
Of course, self driving cars seem to be a much better alternative to a phone that enters silent mode when being driven around.
You just wait until an emergent evil consciousness spontaneously forms out of the NSA's supercomputers. Seeing as the NSA will have backdoors into everything by that point, we'll have that thing playing toy cars with us. Now, where's my tinfoil hat?
Yes, you can now get exactly that machine!
http://www.totousa.com/Green/P...
I have driven across Germany on the autobahn and yes, flashing lights and tailgating at drivers who stay subsonic is standard procedure, and not targeted by police. I've even seen the occasional non-BMW driver do it,
Or if you drive too fast in places where you should not, like on many parts of the autobahn.
All the other things you named are against the law as well. So basically if you do something illegal and they catch you, you are fined (and loose points). If you don't do anything illegal, you are fine.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
(and loose points)
Be careful with those loose points, you might lose them ;-)
Then birds haven't adapted to flight because they occasionally fly into trees.
Animals die all the time... adaptation does not mean perfection.
Think about how many people we have on the road. Think about how often someone gets into an accident. Consider the complexity, the speed, etc.
We do quite well.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The thing that distracts me the most is thinking (about something other than driving). Shall we ban thinking????
Have another look. Self-driving car tech is a lot more advanced than people realize.
I hate printers.
Your solution is personalized to your experience, and all of your conclusions are based on your knowledge and behavior.
I do not want a hardware keyboard on my phone, but I might take an add on if it were cheap. I don't text while driving because I rarely text anyone. Therefore, my solution to this problem is going to be different.
Consider how your field of view would be enforced, especially if you object to using SUV to ensure there is nothing outside the field of view?
It is clear that you have given this little thought outside of your use case. My experience shows that 16 year olds look at the screen, hardware or no, and they are only half present in any conversation while typing. And these are the least experienced drivers. How does your solution work for them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
The main problem is that we are human being, that we are *NOT* robot.
the MAIN problem is passengers. a phone that auto detects driving will affect passengers which you don't want . Meaning you have to turn the phone to driving mode which most people don't do anyway.
Just another second banana
"Your solution is personalized to your experience, and all of your conclusions are based on your knowledge and behavior."
Uh, no kidding. Do you expect me to produce peer-reviewed studies or something? Do you think that my experience is invalid? Do you expect me to conduct extensive research before posting a Slashdot comment? Am I supposed to be able to know everyone else's sum total of life experience and relative skill levels before I'm allowed to post some thoughts to encourage more constructive feedback than "hurr durr fucking idiots should stop texting and driving"?
What's your solution to the problem? Remember that since you've implied that "conclusions based on personal experience, knowledge, and behavior" are automatically insufficient, you'll need to present a much more significant chunk of information to back it up than your own personal experience, knowledge, and behavior.
You have contributed nothing to this discussion other than berating me and making a straw man argument about 16-year-olds, and I don't see how your post is in any way productive.
Not sure if trolling...or just lazy
when i drive, i usually plug the phone in to charge and set it to play music. a passenger probably would not plug it in. and yes the interface for the music playing sucks, but then again i haven't tried to find a better app. i would want ti to shuffle through the songs and if i tap it, just go to the next one. any calls or texts that come in can wait. they are probably from work anyway, people avoiding the after hours help desk number they are supposed to use.
> I could see every brake light and every erratic movement.
No. You only saw the ones that you saw. You didn't notice the ones that you didn't see.
> they still haven't understood this concept about marijuana
The real problem with marijuana is that its users don't notice the effects that it has on them. The brain damage makes them think that it is not having any effect. In particular it makes them incapable of making informed judgements about safety, to the point of them thinking it is safe to drive and text.
Your message indicates that you are someone who should never be allowed to drive. At all.
Germans are notorious tailgaters even at 140mph. If you're in the left lane in an unlimited zone and you aren't doing more than the guy behind you, expect to get the headlight flash (oh hi Mr. Porsche @ 190mph!). Motorcyclists split lanes even when traffic is flowing at 60mph. The police here just don't have the kind of manpower required to regulate drivers like you imply. Lots of speed cameras (fixed and temporary) though!
Actually some of the worst are Mercedes drivers. They say the car comes with built in right of way!
...you can learn to put a fucking cell phone down.
Exactly. Force people to take responsibility for their own actions. If you have an accident while using a phone, it's automatically considered your fault and you lose your driving privileges for a year. If it happens again, you lose it permanently. And don't do it like the stupid way most states handle DUIs. You should not get a "permit" to drive to/from work while your license is revoked. A revoked or suspended license should mean a revoked or suspended license, get caught driving with one and go to prison for ten years.
If you have an accident and you hurt someone, you are responsible for ALL their medical costs. If you kill someone you are automatically guilty of capitol murder.
As a PASSENGER in an automobile, I don't want to be restricted in sending a message because the GPS says I'm moving. Make the DRIVER take responsibility.
Here's the problem: we've tried to make people into better drivers since the automobile was invented. It hasn't worked. You can't change human nature.
Sure you can, it's just that the modern legal system won't.
People still drive drunk, they still drive distracted. The main reason fatalities have dropped is only because cars are safer.
Again, if people were properly punished for DUIs there wouldn't be that many repeat offenders. I know people at work who talk about getting their third DUI in two years and it is not a big deal. In a real society they would still have eight years in prison before they could even think about being a repeat offender.
We don't need smarter drivers. We need smarter cars ... or specifically, self-driving cars. Take the human entirely out of the equation, and only then will you see a real difference.
Wrong. I don't want a car that's going to wrestle control away because it thinks something is in the road. I've had too many automotive computers go bad over the years I just don't trust them. I don't know if it's the vibration, or high temperatures in the engine compartment, or my particular taste in vehicle models, but I've just had bad luck with car computers.
Pilots are taught "Aviate - navigate - communicate" In that order.
Its really quite simple. Go ahead, use your phone while driving. But when youre changing lanes, backing up, moving through an intersection... PUT IT DOWN.... & then when the hazard is gone & the workload subsides, THEN you can pick it up again.
Its never been a problem for me to say "hey hold on a sec i gotta change lanes"
The person on the other end will understand, i promise you.
If we could just drill that into peoples heads, the problem would be gone. But instead of an awareness campaign that educates, we get fearmongering & unnecessary legislation.
There's nothing wrong with mandatory sentences. There just aren't many types of crimes that are cut-and-dry enough to use it. Texting and driving, though... I think that might actually be black-and-white enough for mandatory sentencing.
Can you give me a hypothetical situation where texting and driving *isn't* something that is immoral?
[citation needed]
And here is even more evidence that Americans are simply not taught to drive properly.
The absolute first thing you do when you get into a car is adjust your seat and mirrors.
Adjusting the radio or AC isn't even in the same league of distractions as a smartphone. People do need to be able to handle taking their eyes off the road in front of them momentarily. You need to do this to check your mirrors, instrumentation and blindspots when needed. When people use a smartphone they don't just take their eyes off the road for a fraction of a second, they take their entire minds off the job of driving for up to minutes at a time.
Comparing phones to changing the radio station is a strawman and a bad strawman at that. It's like saying that attractive women must be banned from riding motorcycles or walking along the side of a street because a male motorist might become distracted. It's utter bollocks because you as a driver, are expected to maintain enough discipline that you can ignore distractions and are smart enough not to play with the radio and AC or spend too long oogling at a hot chick on the side of the road. It used to be the same with phones until people demonstrated they would prioritise their phone call/text above driving.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
That was my first question also. I don't really have a problem with a phone that prevents me from actively using it while I'm driving mainly because I won't be actively using it while driving. (Exceptions: Already programmed Google Maps navigation where I'm listening to the robo-voice telling me to turn right in 500 feet or taking a short phone call using a bluetooth headset.)
However, if I want to update my Twitter feed or play a game and I'm sitting in the passenger seat, why shouldn't I? If my phone "helpfully" says "you are driving now, you can't use me", then I'll say a) where's the Turn Off This Feature setting or b) I want a new phone without this feature!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Google's self-driving cars have gone 300,000 miles without an accident. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30–42 average-teen-driver-years worth of driving. Statistically, about 1 in five teenagers reports having an accident in any given year. So we would expect that the same number of miles driven by teenagers would have resulted in, on average, 6–8 accidents—more if we're talking about teenagers in their first year of driving.
In other words, Google's self-driving cars are already at least an order of magnitude safer than teen drivers. That's probably a statistically significant difference.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yep. Not sure what GP was on about, but I'd trust a Google Car over a teen driver any day of the week.
I hate printers.
If revocation of a drivers license couldn't be financially ruinous far out of proportion to the offense, it wouldn't be nearly so popular among the law-n-order crwoed.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect Tom just said that to get a rise out of you.
In any case, since I'm not in the habit of emailing myself, I'm pretty sure that he and I are not the same person.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Nope, that would be coercion ("NÃtigung").
So let me be clear on this, it's illegal for you to clog the passing lane, but it's also illegal for another driver to tell you that you're breaking the law, and they would like to move through? Is anything legal in Germany? Besides, I suppose, boot licking.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Perhaps, just perhaps, if we were not so obsessed -- or rather, forced -- with working 40-60 hour weeks, giving up all interaction with loved ones except for what comes via electronic letters of 120-characters*, we might not have this problem. Instead of appliances that do the work themselves (that hasn't worked exceptionally well in vacuuming, cooking, or any other household robotics application -- this coming from a Neato household, btw), I simply refuse to let a computer decide how best to handle the turns and curves of the glorious roadways that my city, county and state have installed. Some of us -- perhaps only that endangered 10% of the population clinging to manual transmission vehicles -- actually enjoy the act of driving. I think many of us wouldn't opt for commutes in excess of 20 miles if we didn't. Perhaps, again, we have to have those commutes because we must have jobs and the inequity of affordable housing in relation to job creation centers exists. Regardless, I think that the homogenizing and standardizing of all new vehicles to not only look identical (see: all ground-up production hybrids), but also reducing in fun factor (convertibles, actual sunroofs, handling, 0-60 in something other than two weeks).
In an ideal world, we wouldn't drive to work. We wouldn't drive to the market. We would only drive because we like the exhilarating feeling of taking a 25mph exit ramp at 45 to 60mph and listening to the rubber burn right off your $125 per tire Yokohamas. But then there are those who consider that dangerous and unsafe. The same people who deemed a 7mph decelerated braking event to be "hard braking," with no context to the actual environment condition. There is no win-win.
For me, personally, I don't like this hand held device keeping me away from maintaining a fuel efficient constant speed (usually 70). People running under the limit (hybrids) in anything besides the right lane (always), over-the-road trucks who get cut off by said slow driving fools who race down the on ramp only to slam on their brakes and slow down to their "fuel efficient" speed in front of a giant brick that doesn't stop on a dime, or a quarter, or your Prius, and the occasional deer or hawk or malfunctioning aircraft making an emergency landing in your lane are all things I wish to keep an eye out for. So, to do this, and so the cute yet frustrating "pling" my phone makes when I receive a text message doesn't cut into the music I'm playing at the top of my Monsoon stereo's capabilities.... I flip that little switch on the side to "silent," and I go about my merry way.
Texting behind the wheel only makes any level of sense on trips that exceed 1 hour and the communication doesn't warrant utilization of plan minutes (which, most of us who kept that unlimited data, DON'T have unlimited minutes).
It's just my thoughts.
Dear Jody,
You do not HAVE to "have to hide the phone" because you do NOT have to text while driving.
Let me introduce you to a concept called DEAD SPACE http://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=1506. If there is a building 100m from your position, it obscures everything behind it. The closer an object is to the observer, the more dead spaces is created behind it.
And you think you're doing the right thing by putting a phone within 1 meter of your "general field of view". Someone like you should get license suspensions and heavy fines. Then you wouldn't need to go to jail, but you'd have to choose between driving, sending text messages or eating (one thing you MUST do).
Tom literally said it, you're shown doing it (TrollingForHostsFiles) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Question: WHO ARE YOU *TRYING* TO FOOL?
APK
P.S.=> Face the music, Zontar (you screwed up large) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... you lying libeling sockpuppet using troll... apk
My newest car has a bluetooth. If I get a call on the road, I can press one button, on the steering wheel, to answer the phone, and another to hang up, easier than fiddling with the radio. I can keep the phone in my pocket the whole time.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Or we could cut off their hands! That would work, right? ...mandatory sentences, my ass. Haven't we had enough of "zero tolerance" rules already? They're much worse than the problems they purport to solve.
Many of our zero tolerance rules have scenarios that crop up that bring their validity into question. For example, the student who chooses to support the USA by wearing an American flag t-shirt, but is asked to remove it because it is somehow falls under a zero tolerance dress code policy. On the surface, there are arguments to both sides that would make sense which shine a horrible light on the intent of zero tolerance.
However, a zero tolerance policy applied towards distracted driving can and does make sense. You can easily make mandatory sentences work here because there simply is no sensible argument or stance you can take to defend texting while driving. None. If you can, then perhaps the laws are not the problem here.
What's so hard about "If GPS or Cell Phone Tower location reports speed greater than 20MPH, turn on car mode"?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
All that's really needed is for police to have the authority to confiscate the cell-phone / mobile-phone / smart-phone of a driver who was seen using it, ...
tuck it gently under (in front of) the front wheel, and then tell the driver they can go
How many broken phones will it take to cure some people? Let's find out!
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
Lemme guess, you have a Ford? My mom's complained about car computers failing on her over the years too, and she's had Fords for about 20 years now. I never heard anyone else complain about this.
You can do what I did and buy a suction-cup mount for your windshield for $6 from Dealextreme.
When I drive with my wife on longer trips, she frequently drives while I do navigation with two phones. One phone does the actual navigation (and sits in a windshield-mount), while I use a second phone to do things such as look for restaurants to stop at, check the reviews at those restaurants, etc. It'd be idiotic to prevent me from doing that and force us to pull over for 15 minutes just to figure out where we'd like to stop next, and would only increase our chances of an accident.
My newest car has a bluetooth. If I get a call on the road, I can press one button, on the steering wheel, to answer the phone, and another to hang up, easier than fiddling with the radio. I can keep the phone in my pocket the whole time.
Yeah, I can press a single button and go through the usual banter of "What?!?" and "Say that again?!?" and "You're breaking up, mute your mic" before pulling my phone out of my pocket and pressing many more buttons to have an actual phone call.
Yes, I know the intent of bluetooth systems tied to speakers in cars. I also know the practicality of them.
I demand to know which multiple of 23.2 is the multiplying factor!
If you break the dress code, it really doesn't matter why, unless maybe your house burned down and you don't have other clothes. "Supporting the USA"? Who gives a fuck?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
In Germany it's considered better to put your indicator on while you're in the fast lane to indicate to the person in front of you that you want to pass them. Flashing your lights is considered rude.
I was eating once while driving and my girlfriend asked me if I found it hard to drive while I was eating.
My response was, no; although, I sometimes find it difficult to eat while driving.
In other words, the one single most important thing to do while driving is to pay attention to driving. If you can do anything else while driving, then fine, do it. If the thing you are doing while driving requires that you take your attention away from driving then you need to stop, do whatever it is, then go back to driving.
The real problem arises when people start thinking that it is a pain in the ass to stop for a moment just to arrange the hamburger buns and that a moment of inattention to fix them is fine. *CRASH* (sometimes)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Hm. I have to ask: Why is flashing lights at someone necessarily a bad thing?
To be honest, I do it fairly often. A quick flash seems to let people who are on their phones in the fast lane and doing 30% under the speed limit that someone is coming up at them fairly quickly. Granted, flashing your high beams seemingly endlessly is just plain rude but a quick flash seems to wake people up who would otherwise not be paying attention... but then, perhaps it is just the country I am driving in currently. In America, they don't care what lane they are in or what speed you are going, they will stay in the fast lane chatting on their phone as if they were the only person in the whole world.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
In Germany it's considered better to put your indicator on while you're in the fast lane to indicate to the person in front of you that you want to pass them. Flashing your lights is considered rude.
Clogging the passing lane is rude. Flashing your lights makes much more sense than indicating a turn you can't make. If I saw someone indicating a turn they couldn't make behind someone driving too slow I'd assume I was looking at a couple of assholes, not one good driver stuck behind one asshole, because assholes leave their signal on all the time.
I really have little idea how this idea is seen around the world, however. I know that flash to pass is acceptable in the UK and Canada, and it's the standard in most US states including California, where there are the most people, the most vehicles, and the most vehicle miles traveled.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"