Slashdot Mirror


Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

An anonymous reader writes: While legislators and police try to tackle the epidemic of distracted driving through education, regulation, and enforcement, Scott Tibbitts is trying to solve it through engineering. He developed a small device which, when plugged into a vehicle, would determine which phone belonged to the driver and shut off its texting and voice call capabilities. "The telematics box sends a wireless message that the car is moving. The phone sends its own message about its location. Both sets of information — from the car and phone — are sent to Katasi's servers. Then, an algorithm weighs the incoming data with other information, like the location of the phones belonging to all the people who drive the car and the starting point of the trip; if the trip starts at Junior's high school, and mom and dad's phones are at work, the driver has been identified — Junior is driving."

The problem is that Tibbitts can't get anyone interested in setting up a system to make these devices ubiquitous. Consumers can't be sold on such a product: all evidence suggests people are increasingly unwilling to be cut off from constant communication. So, he tried working with carriers. Sprint partnered with Tibbitts long enough to test the device, but they were afraid of the legal risks involved. Now, Tibbitts is nursing the technology along, looking for a way to get it into cars and make people safer.

21 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. A solution in search of a problem... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If someone has so little self-control as to be unable to avoid talking or texting while driving, why are we allowing them to drive in the first place?

    The energy in a 4,000lb vehicle moving at 40-60 mph is considerable.

    Perhaps we need stricter drivers license requirements?

    1. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If someone has so little self-control as to be unable to avoid talking or texting while driving, why are we allowing them to drive in the first place?

      It is against the law pretty much everywhere. However that law is enforced pretty much nowhere. It is just simply too difficult to enforce it, as a police officer has to catch the person in the act to even write a ticket. And then the ticket is so laughably small in terms of the monetary penalty as to be pointless to even write.

      In other words, people do it because they (wrongly) think they can do it safely, and then (unfortunately correctly) believe that they have nearly a zero chance of getting busted for it.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, its not like that at all.

      Its a lot more like driving while reading a newspaper, or doing anything else that takes your eyes off the road. If nothing happens that requires a quick reaction from you during the few moments that you are distracted, then nothing bad happens. But if your timing is unfortunate, so is the accident that happens.

      So no, people cannot generally safely do it. It is unsafe, but also commonly uneventful.

    3. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A policeman in Los Angeles killed a man by answering emails while driving.

      He was not even charged with a crime for it because apparently by answering police department email it was all in the service of the badge.

      In this context... they continue to go after people that might answer a text while driving whether people are even injured or not.

      Don't get me wrong... you shouldn't answer texts while driving. But I am incensed that the police officer is not even put on trial for manslaughter or negligent homicide.

      If the police need to answer email while driving, then either give them automated cars or require them to have two police officers in every car. Short of that... they should be paying attention to driving while driving. Until that is a rule, I can't take this whole topic seriously.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is a lot like driving with one hand verses two at the ten and two positions. Many people can safely drive with one hand but it is safer to be in the ten and two positions with two hands which is why we need to do it to pass most driving tests.

      In theory (one, anyway) 10 and 2 are the best positions, so DMV examiners have been insisting on it.

      In reality, it turns out, 9:30 and 3:30 are safer.

      In theory, talking on the phone is distracting.

      In reality, it's been shown that drivers who are a little bit tired are much safer if they're also talking.

      In theory, texing bans will reduce traffic accidents.

      In reality, people in those States text below the steering wheel, completely taking their eyes off the road, to avoid cops seeing then, while those in States without such bans tend to text with the phone at the top of the steering wheel, so they can at least keep half an eye on the road. Paradoxically, texting bans are deadly.

      Tibbit's "solutions" work in theory, but reality is far more messy. To assume otherwise is hubristic.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I simply agree... The police don't seem to feel they are subject to the same laws they are enforcing... which is a shame, and backwards to how it should be (they should be held to a stricter standard).

    6. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Informative

      Speeding = higher risk of crash.

      Meh, that propaganda has been around for awhile...

      To an extent, speeding can perhaps make a crash worse, but that isn't really why we have speeding laws.

      We have them to generate income for the government, specifically local and state government, to the tune of $6.2 billion last year.

      The German Autobaun is safer per mile driven than US highways. Many reasons for it:

      1. Better roads (their roads are better maintained and thicker)

      2. Better driver training (it is expensive and strict)

      3. Better enforcement of "drive right". (on the highway, you pass on the left, drive on the right, it is safer than what we do in the US, which is to drive all over the road at random speeds)

    7. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speeding = higher risk of crash.

      Meh, that propaganda has been around for awhile...

      How is this modded "Informative" when this thread (GP's and GGP's posts) is about speeding in a school zone (not the Autobahn)?

      The main reason for slower speeds in school zones is often to avoid pedestrian injuries and deaths -- since little kids sometimes do unexpected things and run into roads without thinking.

      To an extent, speeding can perhaps make a crash worse, but that isn't really why we have speeding laws.

      I think if you hit a kid going 25 mph (a typical school zone speed limit), you are already going to seriously injure and maybe kill him/her. But at least at a lower speed you might have a better chance of avoiding the kid by braking, swerving, etc. If you're going 45 mph or whatever the normal speed limit is on that road, the kid is probably dead. Sorry -- but speeding in a school zone BOTH (1) results in a higher risk of "crash" AND (2) will likely result in greater injury.

      We have them to generate income for the government, specifically local and state government, to the tune of $6.2 billion last year.

      Yeah, we'd never enact speeding laws to protect pedestrians in high-traffic areas, or anything silly like that!

      The German Autobaun is safer per mile driven than US highways. Many reasons for it:

      While you make some reasonable points, this has little to do with the present discussion of a school zone. But even outside of schools, there are all sorts of reasons for speed limits that are not politically motivated, like:

      (1) Residential areas or business districts with higher pedestrian traffic

      (2) General density of environment -- e.g., curves or other obstacles that decrease visibility of road ahead, how easy it is to see cars pulling out from side streets/driveways, how many random "manuevers" you're likely to see because cars need to change lanes to make turns, park, etc.

      (3) Traffic flow on busy roads and congested highways: traffic has transition thresholds, sort of like laminar vs. turbulent flow in fluids. If everyone is driving at 65 mph in a highly congested area, and someone just brakes at the wrong time or cuts someone off, it can set up a traffic wave that propagates backwards and might result in stop-and-go traffic for 20 minutes. If, instead, people drive at 45 mph on average in the same traffic density, they have more time to react, and it can actually increase traffic throughput by making stop-and-go traffic less likely. That's one of the reasons many cities have introduced variable speed limits on highways that get lowered near rush hour: they're not trying to generate more revenue (usually) -- they're actually trying to help you get home faster. If you refuse to obey them and end up braking hard because of something unexpected which you would not have been a problem at a lower speed, you're likely contributing to traffic jams.

      SUMMARY: Your argument is about maximum speed limits on straight highways. This thread is about the vast majority of roads which exist in less optimal conditions with less visibility, more obstacles, pedestrians, etc. In those cases, perhaps unlike the Autobahn, speed limits definitely make sense. And Germans agree, since they have speed limits under these scenarios.

      And if you're that jerk you keeps weaving through traffic and passing me on the right in mornings when I'm going through school zones on a busy 4-lane road, STOP IT. You're endangering people, mainly pedestrians (one of whom I actually saw hit during my commute). THAT'S why we sometimes need speed limits.

    8. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For certain very lucky values of "safely", sure. Taking your eyes completely off the road to do something is, quite simply, never a good idea.

      Nonesense. You take your eyes off the road all the time in order to specifically drive safely. You take your eyes off the road when you check your speedometer, tack, warning gauges, mirrors, to read road signs and look for crossing traffic, and so on as a function of driving safely.

      Every one of those functions take less time than writing a text message. Furthermore all those functions are designed to be easy and safe to do while driving. Text messaging was never designed with that in mind.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    9. Re:A solution in search of a problem... by RandomAdam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I once tried to reply to a text while going down a gentle grade on my mountain bike....ended up on my ass....pine cone in a shadow caught the front wheel.....I had done it many times before and it was fine. Just goes to show just because you succeed in not crashing 100 times doesn't mean that you will succeed 101 times. I haven't done it again since...too much to do to risk being injured for a text message.

      --
      @Random_Adam

      Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
  2. Won't work by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I predict idiots putting their phones in the passenger seat, and leaning over in addition to their previous phone use. Unless this is a device that can be unplugged, in which case they'll unplug it and then use their phone.

    The technological solution to this problem is self-driving cars.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Won't work by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure as hell not going to allow even MORE TRACKING just to support this hair brained scheme, Track everyone who ever rode in that car just to maker sure they aren't driving it?

      Phones and car kits already offer to reply that the owner is driving, or to read it aloud, and take a reply verbally. There is no excuse t go all NSA on every passenger.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. A different tack by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about we just put lights on top of cars that light up brightly when a text message is being sent from anyone in the car? Then the rest of the drivers on the road can avoid those idiots, as the ones who have texting passengers in the car (aside from taxis and such) are generally no better than the ones who are attempting to text while driving.

    The bright light would also make it easier for cops to know who to pull over when they are doing enhanced patrols for these shit-heads as well.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  4. Fines work better ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fines and public education work better than a technical solution to stupidity. People understand when it hits their wallet directly and when their phones are confiscated.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Nobody wants this by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See, here's the thing. Fuck Scott Tibbitts.
    I don't want his technology. There are so many scenarios where this would unnecessarily screw up my life. What if I'm driving and my wife wants to use my phone to answer a call? That's just one.

    More importantly, my car has a built in hands free that I can operate by voice. Why should I not be allowed to use it.

    If we really want to make the roads safer, give me the power to arrest the dipshits that fly around me on the Interstate doing 20 miles above the speed limit and changing lanes like they are at Daytona.

    1. Re:Nobody wants this by jimhill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, fuck this guy. His next step since he can't get anyone to buy his product voluntarily will be to explain to some legislators over dinner (his treat) and maybe a round of golf (ditto) why it's a good idea for them to mandate it. One way or another, our boy Scotty gonna get paid.

      --
      Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
  6. bullshit by silfen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His "solution" is utter bullshit, trying to capitalize on "think of the children", helicopter parenting, and potential legislation.

    It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).

    Furthermore, the right company to partner with are insurance companies, but they already have a better mechanism for monitoring in place: they don't care whether you text per se, they care whether you drive erratically for any reason. For lower insurance rates, you can agree to monitoring. Nice voluntary solution and incentive.

    Finally, if there is a technical solution to be developed, it's a good voice-based, hands-free texting app that lets you text with a Bluetooth headset. Phone calls and voice interfaces are legal in most places, and will likely remain so. That's also something many people would use voluntarily because it is both safer and convenient.

  7. Engineers and Legislators by Sarusa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another engineer who thinks he can cobble up a single technological solution to a social problem.

    This is the same sort of hubris that has legislators passing random crap to 'fix' a problem with zero understanding of the problem or the consequences of their solution. It's arrogance. For one, it assumes you're smarter (or at least sharper) than the people you're trying to control.

    (Disclaimer: I'm an engineer.)

  8. Re:Location, location, location. by stoploss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not going to give a third party who is not strictly regulated in how and what can be done with this information permission to track my location 24/7 in order to tell if I'm driving my car or someone else is just to disable communications.

    This. I can't believe he thought his solution was reasonable when "all" it has to do is have a database of where your family works, goes to school, which cars you own, and, of course track your entire family's location 24/7.

    FFS, I'm an engineer and I take special delight in degenerate solutions, but this is fucked up.

    Maybe this is a degenerate solutions competitive. Okay, let me try one of my own: we will have one member of the Stasi handcuffed to every licensed driver in the country, 24/365. Their job will be to monitor everyone's driving and ensure that the law is being abided. No, of *course* the Stasi member won't share the personal, private aspects of your life with the government... they're just there to keep everyone safe!

  9. Re:10 and 2 is for older cars by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember learning to drive on my grandfather's farm in his old Willy's truck. You had to double clutch because there was no syncro-gear and if you hit a deep dip or ditch the wheel would spin beneath your hands. It was vital for the survival of your thumbs to ensure that they were NEVER curled around the steering wheel or risk having them broken or torn off completely.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  10. Re:10 and 2 is for older cars by Rakhar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have you been in a car crash where the airbag deployed? Your seatbelt is the most important thing, yes, but god damn that airbag is powerful. I can still taste the blood 8 years later. I can honestly say I've never been hit by anything as hard as that airbag, and that was a low speed crash. I almost lost half of an ear to it as well, since I wear glasses. My glasses flew forwards from the initial impact, then the airbag hit with enough force to push the earpiece through my ear and rip the top half nearly all the way off. A tiny piece of skin was the only thing holding it on. To this day I can't wear in-the-ear earbuds because the one on that side works itself out.

    So yeah, as the poster above you said... Airbags are good in life or death situations. For any other crash, they're easily as much of a danger as the crash itself.