Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction 326
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.
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.
A solution in search of a problem... (Score:5, 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?
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it against the law almost everywhere?
I really only know about locally... The only place here it is illegal is in school zones.. otherwise, talk and text away while driving...
Re: (Score:3)
Is it against the law almost everywhere?
I really only know about locally... The only place here it is illegal is in school zones.. otherwise, talk and text away while driving...
Texting while driving in most places can be classified as distracted driving. It doesn't need a special classification; if you were reading the newspaper while driving you could be pulled over and fined for that, texting is often handled the same way.
Some places have additional statutes and fines on the matter, but that is just to try to raise awareness - or revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point...
Several cities around here have suggested passing a ban with fines attached... They HAVE passed bans on talking or texting while in school zones, so by implication it is fine outside of those areas.
In my experience (and from talking to others), no one has ever heard of anyone pulled over for it for "distracted driving". They are making too much money on speeding tickets.
A friend of mine recently was nailed for 40 in a 20 mph school zone, she was pulling out of a Toyota dealership on a s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:4, 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)
Re: (Score:2)
However, having bad roads and poorly trained drivers higher speed results in higher probability of a crash (for example higher probability that you won't see a pedestrian crossing or won't be able to stop in time) and a worse crash. So, the result is (even if probability stays the same) you drive too fast = you cause problems for other people, while you don't wear a seatbelt = you cause problems only for yourself.
Also, even Germany has speed limits on other roads and inside cities.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
many studies have shown that when a car hits a pedestrian at 40mph the fatality rate is ten times greater than 30MPH. and in a school zone, there are a lot of kids around...
we should be more vigilant about revoking drivers licenses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Make the punishment fit the crime. If you're swinging a loaded gun around pointing it at people and unintentionally shoot someone you're going to jail. You drive around like a jackass, speeding, weaving in traffic, running lights or stop signs, at worse you get a ticket that cost a little bit of money. And yet far more people are killed by idiot drivers than are by gun accidents. It's completely irrational.
It's simple. The first ticket is a freebie, a $1000 and lose your license for a day. The second ticket
Re: (Score:3)
Well, driving a car with a manual gearbox makes talking on the phone while driving (without using handsfree equipment) inconvenient (unless I am driving on a straight long road). I never text while driving. SMS is low priority and high latency to me - I will reply when I can. If it is urgent to you - call.
However, this device seems pointless. I have to buy it and install it in my car. Even assuming it can work with my older phones (a Nokia E90 and a Nokia 1100), I could, you know, just don't use the phone w
Re: (Score:2)
There is one tool I've found that has come in handy: A dash cam. If we get more people using these, some texter denying their actions would be proven wrong (assuming the camera has a good shot and the footage is detailed enough) in both civil and criminal courts.
Put the fear of $DEITY into people that if they cause a wreck... someone has a dash cam of the situation and will be more than happy to put that video on YouTube for a DA, opposing lawyers, insurance company, and cow-orkers to see, it might just s
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For the most part, people can safely do it.
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.
Well, in a technical sense it is less safe than not texting while driving but so many people do it without incident each and every day that they consider it safe enough for them to do it.
A lot of people drive drunk and don't cause accidents (or only harm themselves) yet we don't consider it to be safe.
It is a lot like driving with one hand verses two at the ten and two positions.
No, it is far much more like driving drunk.
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.
Generally only the case if your car has an automatic transmission. Rather hard to do that if you are taking a test with a standard transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
"Generally only the case if your car has an automatic transmission. Rather hard to do that if you are taking a test with a standard transmission."
Nonsense. The only time you can't do it is when you're changing gear.
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:5, 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.
10 and 2 is for older cars (Score:3)
It's 9 and 3 if you have an airbag, according to the NHTSA.
I'm skeptical as to whether there has been any benefit to 10 and 2 since power steering became common.
Re:10 and 2 is for older cars (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I was taught the same thing in the Army while learning to drive off road vehicles at high speed. Thumbs outside the wheel always when off road.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're close, anyway. In the real world, around 8 and 4, or even 7:30 and 4:30 is a better choice when you're using two hands. It's been a LONG time since power steering obviated the need to ever use both hands to apply torque. Any but the most violent left turn can be easily accomplished solely with the right hand starting at 4 or 4:30, and any but the most violent right turn can easily be accomplished solely with the left hand starting at 7
Re: (Score:2)
Airbags don't do much good if you're not buckled up. They can't keep your whole body from slamming into the steering wheel and dashboard. So even with an airbag you will still break your legs and slam your head into the windscreen when you're not using the safety belt. Airbags are designed to protect only your head and upper torso from hitting the steering wheel when you are buckled up.
Re:10 and 2 is for older cars (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No offence but I found the part about your glasses leaving your face for a split second fascinating, did it happen in that weird "slo
Re: (Score:2)
It's not always safer to be in the ten and two positions, as it can interfere with airbag deployment and lead to broken bones [emsworld.com] in the hand and wrist in an otherwise minor collision.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, when that airbag fills explosively, nobody's arms are going to do squat to stop it from filling, not even Sylvester Stallone's. But you're right, if they are anywhere near the bag they are going to flail like hell and almost certainly hit stuff with devastating impact. From ten-and-two you have a pretty decent chance of smashing your eyeglasses into your eyes with your flying hands/arms.
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In reality, it turns out, 9:30 and 3:30 are safer.
Oh yeah? 9:30 and 3:30 are not mirror-opposites. Did you mean 9:30 and 2:30?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
10 and 2 are not mirror opposites either, at least not on any clock I've used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you've can point out specific problems with his solution
Hmm, how about just of the top of my head:
1: requires DATA since it sends stuff to servers "somewhere" which leads to...
2: big time invasion of privacy, who is this stupid company, why should I trust them with the location of both myself and my kids ( as in the "example" )
3: why should I trust some unknown yahoo to keep my data secure when no one else seems to be able to... and exact times family members are separated from each other / the house is empty are even worse than CC# leaks.
4: It can only stop p
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, people can safely do it. Well, in a technical sense it is less safe than not texting while driving but so many people do it without incident each and every day that they consider it safe enough for them to do it.
This statement applies equally to driving while drunk. Lots of people do it every day and few have an accident. You might find it interesting to read up on low-probability/high-consequence risks.
The baseline probability of a fatal accident is about 1 / 1.2 million per mile traveled [wikipedia.org], so if something increases your risk by a factor of 20 (the estimated risk factor for texting while driving [maafirm.com]), you would not notice it from your experience. It would take statistical analysis of a large number of crashes to determ
Re: (Score:3)
It's 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles.
Death isn't the only risk, however. Getting paralyzed, getting disfigured, etc. are pretty serious consequences that don't end in death.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, people can safely do it..
No you can't. You might be arrogant enough to think you can multitask, but the family of the person you kill will not be impressed by your l33t driving skillz.
Re: (Score:3)
I've sprained my wrist using my hand to vault over the hood of a car that decided it didn't have to check for pedestrians before making a turn...or look up during the turn itself I guess. I was crossing on the same intersection side, from the far side of the road. In a crosswalk. With the go ahead. I have zero faith in anyone else's ability to not be a complete and total retard at any given time.
That said, there's not any way to get people to follow the no-texting-while-driving laws without invading pri
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:5, 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.
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:4, 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).
Re: (Score:3)
After a few accidents caused by drunk cops driving (that actually injuredor killed people) in my country, the new law is that if a cop is caught drunk behind the wheel, he can start looking for a new job (in addition to whatever punishment a non-cop would get in the same situation).
Re: (Score:3)
What is sad is that it took a new law for that to happen...
That should just have been the default position...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fines won't stop this just like they don't stop speeding. Fines are just tax revenue for the state. The answer is to remove the incentive to use the damn phone while driving. Maybe just rewrite the software running the towers to pick up relative motion of a node exceeding a certain speed (either from the phone's gps or from triangulation), it disables the interface, or at least disallows certain traffic (like sms).
Perhaps a better solution to idiocy is to let darwin take his course in society a bit more in
Re: (Score:2)
No. The phone is an interactive distraction which is not the same as a radio etc. If you bothered to read the rest of my post, you would've noticed that I addressed the social problem. I'm sure your bitch-ass has a problem with that, too because it doesn't involve rainbows, ponies and pity parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, as we all know, if we pass laws and impose stricter requirements, it fixes everything! It worked so well for the war on drugs!
But I suppose once we're all in prison, we can't drive-and-text anymore. Good suggestion!
Re: (Score:2)
It works in some places like South Africa and Germany, where people know how to drive...
Re: (Score:2)
Well if they know how to drive then they wouldn't need the laws in the first place. Either way the laws are useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because prohibition and licensing are the same thing!
Re: (Score:2)
It says "people are increasingly unwilling to be cut off from constant communication". In those cases I suggest putting those types of people in some sort of rehabilitation facility. If you are unable to stop using your Phone, then my friend, it's called an addiction and they can get very dangerous for you and especially others if you are unwilling to control yourself.
Most people will say they "need" a phone or a some other form of technology; no you don't. Water, Food and a place to live are needs and othe
JUST TURN OFF THE MOTHERFUCKING PHONE! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey I've got a technical solution to this problem, too: TURN OFF THE MOTHERFUCKING PHONE!
Re: (Score:2)
but but that would require people to take responsibility. How dare you suggest they shouldn't be coddled and denied their pity parties!
Won't work (Score:4, 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.
Re:Won't work (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
The technological solution to this problem is self-driving cars.
Amen, those can't get here fast enough...
But then what will police depts do for money when they no longer have to write $6.2 BILLION dollars worth of traffic tickets?
After all, self-driving cars should be very legal drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
But then what will police depts do for money when they no longer have to write $6.2 BILLION dollars worth of traffic tickets?
After all, self-driving cars should be very legal drivers.
Could have sworn I read about a place that made it illegal to follow every traffic law (because the only people who would do that are people carrying drugs and they don't want to be pulled over). But I can't find it again.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't surprise me....
A different tack (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that "taxis and such" are actually more prone to this issue. A few months ago (Chicago suburb) a taxi (town car) driver pick me and a few others up, was texting and talking on his phone the whole way, almost killed us several times on the highway. He was not just texting, he was talking with a headset while reserving things with his phone. This is worse than texting and should be controlled. I know for a fact that most of these drivers in at least NY and Chicago are constantly on their phones whi
Re: (Score:2)
Great! I suggest warning lights for food, babies, and makeup in cars as well, because those are serious and dangerous distractions as well.
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you see more than one person in a car anyway?
Fines work better ... (Score:4, Insightful)
no, they don't Re:Fines work better ... (Score:2)
Fines and public education work better than a technical solution to stupidity.
Unfortunately it appears that fines and education have been completely ineffective on the matter. I lived in a place for several years that would have annual campaigns to discourage drivers from texting while driving, followed by announced enhanced enforcement of the offense.
So what happened? Were people at least smart enough to send fewer messages during the enhanced enforcement period? No. Not even close. Every year the tallies went up.
People understand when it hits their wallet directly
For one, most of the people doing this are young and their in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although again as the offenders far more often than not are getting everything they need from their parents, confiscation won't do much but prevent them from sending messages for the next 24 hours or so.
These are people who can't go for 10 minutes without texting. Think what 24hours will do.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not really. How much a fine affects someone is directly related to how much money they have. You can't have a fine that's fair across economic brackets. Better and more democratic than fines is taking away their driving privileges. That solves the problem in 2 ways. Add to that, if you drive without a license you go to jail for a year. No exceptions.
Nobody wants this (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.
Re:Nobody wants this (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the wrong solution. People hate driving in general. Before texting was a thing, I would observe people reading the NYT (full blown page open in front of their steering wheel) while commuting to work.
Driving is boring, and people use whatever means possible to give themselves something interesting to do while it's occurring. Put the research into voice recognition. It's always been easier to talk than to type.
Re: (Score:2)
People hate driving in general.
Not all people, but a lot of people do...
Self-driving cars is the proper technology solution to this problem...
Re: (Score:2)
People hate driving in general.
Eh, not everyone does. I quite enjoy driving, I don't even mind being stuck in traffic, as long as I've got the CBC or NPR on the dial...
That said, I keep (handsfree) call short and sweet, and the only time I would ever check/send a text is stopped at a red light (which is still a ticketable offence here).
I use my phone... (Score:2, Funny)
To call the police and report unsafe drivers. Why would anyone want to take that away from me?
Location, location, location. (Score:2)
A big reason why a technical solution like doesn't work (isn't accepted by the masses) is because it requires someone knowing the location of the phones. In this article, it says it checks the location specifically to determine who the likely driver is. 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.
Re:Location, location, location. (Score:5, 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!
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points right now, that is some FUNNY sh*t...
Thanks
Passenger Use, Temporary other driver (Score:2)
This seems ripe with technical flaws, first it assumes that only known persons would ever operate the vehicle; secondly it presumes that the owner can't let anyone else in the vehicle use their phone.
Who Cares Who's Driving (Score:2, Insightful)
This is completely ignoring the fact that anyone in the car could be using the phone. There have been plenty of times I've been in the car when the driver gets a call and I answer it, or call someone from their phone because they had the number pre-programmed, or I'm looking up direction (or doing anything else) on their phone because their's is better than mine. While phones have become sort-of personal devices (for all you upper class families who can afford the luxury of having smart phones and data pl
bullshit (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
My car has voice texting capabilities. Unfortunately, it's tied into the subscription model for the car computer. You can get texts read back to you for free but you have to subscribe to enable the voice text feature. Until car manufacturers offer this for free, no one is going to be any safer.
The solution that this guy developed is dead on arrival for the same reason. No one is interested in paying additional money just to have their cell phone shut down and their vehicle tracked on a cloud computer.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the solution is just to have good Android and iPhone apps doing this. People have tried, but they haven't gotten the dialog quite right yet. I expect in a couple of years, they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Should there actually be special laws along the lines of "vehicular homicide" especially given that they potentially allow someone to literally "get away with murder".
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically just "negligent homicide". Some states make a distinction because it's easier to convict. Unless you specifically intend to kill someone, it is not "murder", and the existence of "vehicular homicide" statutes doesn't preclude a charge of murder.
(In different words, your entire response was complete nonsense.)
Engineers and Legislators (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.)
More details (Score:3)
Anyone understands how this works? There are a lot of data features of my phone that pair with driving. GPS being an obvious one with traffic updates. Another is podcast downloads. And if those data networks are open then I assume most texting services other than SMS work. SMS I figure for most people is a tiny percentage of their traffic at this point. So unless they are blacklisting particular services...?
And of course phone calls have to work: reliable phone while driving is the main reason I own a cell phone in the first place. I assume I'm not alone in this.
I think easy would be adding to automated responses for all messaging services, "Driving, need to give you a long response, call my cell."
Re: (Score:2)
There are several apps for that.
Voice operation of smartphones sucks (Score:2)
The smartphone crowd assumes they own the user's eyeballs. They don't. What's needed is better voice integration. You should be able to call, receive calls, text, and receive texts via a Bluetooth headset with the phone in your pocket.
Android sucks at this. My Samsung flip-phone had better voice dialing than my Android phone. Wildfire [wildfirevi...istant.com], which is from 1997, did this quite well. But it was really expensive to do back then, and was priced as high as $250/month. Then Microsoft bought Wildfire and abandoned th
Why not just make it safer? (Score:2)
Instead of making it more difficult to text while driving - why not make it easier? People are going to do it so why not have speech to text conversions and heads up displays so people don't have to take their hands or eyes off the wheel and road. The technology is already out there, people will use it even when it is irresponsible to do so - so instead why not just make it safer and easier so that people can get on with driving?
There is no law out there that has more influence than a partner, child or ob
However (Score:2)
Passenger using the phone? (Score:2)
I sometimes use the driver's phone to send a text message (we're stuck and traffic and will be late), or use the GPS function (again, on the driver's phone).
Unless it can determine if the phone's in the driver's or passenger's hands, it's a very bad idea.
This doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Solving the wrong problem (Score:2)
The problem isn't how do we make people safer drivers.
The problem is how do we make people NOT the drivers. Then we don't have to worry about whether they are texting.
Simpler Solution (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that this is a problem that needs a solution, but to me, a simple solution to the problem is this:
Start the car with the cell phone. In that way, which cell phone is associated with the driver is simple.
A more detailed disclosure follows:
Instead of starting the car with a key or a button, start the car by sending a text message. The car then blocks sending text messages by that phone for as long as the car is moving, (or in an alternative embodiment, as long as the car is operating). This
Root (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I don't encourage people who type what you did...
But in this case, I'll make an exception... yea, what you said...
Re: (Score:3)
I voted for Obama. What was the alternative, again?
Another big government stooge... Both sucked, so I didn't vote for either...
Re: (Score:2)
People won't chance it if costs as much as seatbelt or redlight tickets.
Those aren't expensive here...
$75 city fine for running a red light, $154 for not having a seat belt on...
Neither of those are high enough to make many people stop.
Speeding? Holy crap that has gotten expensive... Try $400+ for going 10 over...