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.

11 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 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.)

  6. 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!