New System Detects Calls While Driving

Gary writes "Talking on your cellphone while driving isn't a crime in most states, but it should be. Studies have shown that people who drive and talk are many times more likely to have an accident. A new company is releasing a device to automatically detect drivers talking on their cell phones. Instead of police officers needing to observe a cellphone in use, the system automatically detects a cell phone call and records which car was making the call." The article is fairly light on details, but it would be interesting to see how the system differentiates from a driver talking on a cell phone versus a mere passenger.

Sooo...

[Tuoqui (1091447)]

Who thinks a blow up doll in the car will fool this technology?

Re:Sooo...

[Technician (215283)]

Who thinks a blow up doll in the car will fool this technology?

More important, how many without a cell phone will be tagged because they have On Star. It may take the blinking 12 o'clockers a while to figure that one out.

(Blinking 12 o'clockers, those with every VCR and microwave clocking blinking 12:00)

Re:

[iamhassi (659463)]

"how many without a cell phone will be tagged because they have On Star."

More importantly, what's GM going to do about this? There's big money in OnStar, costs $200-$300/yr if you pay yearly [onstar.com]. GM's just going to roll-over and take this?

What about all the bluetooth headset providers? Most people bought the headsets specifically for driving.

What about the National Association of Realtors? I can't imagine they're taking this sitting down and believe it or not they do have a pretty powerful lobbying [realestatejournal.com]

Re:Sooo...

[Original Replica (908688)]

What about all the bluetooth headset providers? Most people bought the headsets specifically for driving.

Headsets or speaker phones being safer while driving is a myth.

"The principal findings for this experiment are that: (a) SPs that engaged in cell phone conversations missed twice as many simulated traffic signals as when they were not talking on the cell phone, (b) SPs took longer to react to those signals that they did detect, and (c) these deficits were equivalent for both hand-held and hands-free cell phone users." http://www.nsc.org/issues/idrive/inincell.htm [nsc.org]

Re:

[dindi (78034)]

I talk on the phone using my headset (wireless/bluetooth) while driving and I do not feel a problem about it.

Dialing, checking email, etc. can be a problem, but talking on a headset that does not even have a cord dangling around?

Please explain me this: how is talking to my wife sitting next to me safer than talking to her on the phone through a headset?

I mean, having a person in your car IS more dangerous:

1. you see less (how many times do you have to tell your passenger that YOU have to see not him/her wh

Re:

[Sunburnt (890890)]

So what's next, forbidding the driver from talking to the passengers ?

Sorry, but this has already [slashdot.org] been hashed out.

Short answer: Because this -

in case you are using a hands-free set while talking on the phone, it's not any different from talking to somebody else in the car

- is wrong.

Re:

[walt-sjc (145127)]

Ah, but you see, this company has a product, and therefor there MUST be a need. I am sure that they will spend millions convincing easily swayed politicians to buy it and pass the legislation needed.

Re:

[B'Trey (111263)]

I may be dense but I really don't see the difference between a driver talking on a hands-free cell phone and the same driver having a conversation with a passenger.

There's likely some truth to the claim that the passenger is also aware of the situation around you while the person on the other end of the phone isn't. However, most studies which claim ridiculous increases in the chances of an accident are severely flawed. Among other things, they usually compare someone talking on a phone to someone concent

Re:

[Original Replica (908688)]

the difference between a driver talking on a hands-free cell phone and the same driver having a conversation with a passenger.

The difference is mainly involved in visualization of the person you are talking to. You aren't just listening to words, you are imagining the person, their expressions, their gestures, etc. Found an interesting study here: http://spotlight.siu.edu/03082006/Hands-freeconve r sations.html [siu.edu]

Re:What's the difference?

[paganizer (566360)]

Which is why you say either "hey, I'll call you back, I'm in traffic" or "hey, shut up for a minute, weirdness is afoot".
If I'm in a Heavy traffic area, i don't talk on the phone, I need all my attention on the road.
But if I'm driving back home 6 miles from getting groceries, where I will see maybe 4 cars, total, after i get out of the city limits?
The problem is, like everything else, the State wants to be my Mommy. I have a mother, i don't need OR want another one. I'm a adult, I've been driving for almost 30 years in all sorts of environments, I haven't had a accident for over 20 years, and that one wasn't my fault.
If you are going to let me vote & drive in the first place, don't you sort of kind of think I can be trusted to NOT do something suicidally stupid?

Re:Like seatbelt laws....

[paganizer (566360)]

Smoking?
I quit smoking a while back, but I'm pretty sure that outside of the lighting process, absolutely no brain activity is required whatsover to smoke.
Which might be why so many people do it, come to think of it.

Re:

[caluml (551744)]

The person on the other end of the phone just keeps babbling away, unaware that a semi is not totally in his lane and I have to decide whether to pass or ease off the gas.

You need silence for that? Shit. I must be Michael Schumacher or something.

Im all for banning cellphone useage by drivers

[nurb432 (527695)]

But this sounds rather invasive to me.

And what the hell is this shooting your car with paintballs? Or EMPing all your electronics? WTF?

Re:

[Xemu (50595)]

And what the hell is this shooting your car with paintballs? Or EMPing all your electronics?

It's a joke, that is what it is.

Legal cell phone use

[arth1 (260657)]

There's plenty of legal cell phone use in cars too, even if it's not a passenger doing it.

• Hands-free systems
  
• Systems like OnStar, where you can get a weather report at the touch of a button.
  
• GPS systems that automatically download maps for nearby areas
  
  • ... and probably a lot more.
    
    

Re:

[tfoss (203340)]

Hands-free systems

You're right on with the other two, but hands-free systems are just as dangerous as normal cell phones. It might be legal, but that is because of poorly-written laws, not due to any extra safety from using hands-free.

-Ted

Re:

[kannibal_klown (531544)]

I think there are different levels of "phone calls." I know people that have intense conversations while driving, going on and on. It takes a lot of thought for those kind of conversations, even if the subject matter is stupid, and I have no doubt in my mind that such conversations greatly reduce the driver's ability to poor levels. anything that has a lot of back-and-forth, arguing, memorization (grocery list), etc can probably screw you up. In some of the "tests" I've seen, they've tried to structure

Re:Legal cell phone use

[pete-classic (75983)]

I disagree. Talking on a hands-free system isn't as good as just driving the freakin' car, but it is better than using a handset.

I ride a motorcycle, and have, therefore, become a keen observer of other people's driving habits. I believe there is a clear hirearcy of cell phone related bad driving.

1. Email/SMS (Should be punishable by summary execution.)
2. Dialing (This seems to be far and away the most common cause of really bad driving.)
3. Talking on a handset. (It seems to create a total lack of awareness of the cell phone side of the vehicle. Not sure why.)
4. Hands free (Potentially less dangerous than talking with a passenger.)

You can make various arguments that talking to someone who isn't in the car requires more attention, but I think this is more than offset by the visual distraction of conversing with a passenger.

There are several other common distractions. Fiddling with the stereo, disciplining children, applying makeup, and eating come to mind. Map reading ranks. I actually saw a guy reading a novel while merging onto the highway about a week ago. Unreal.

Anyway, I think voice dialing is a HUGE win, and hands free talking has noticeably less negative impact on driving in my experience.

I would genuinely like to know why you disagree.

-Peter

Re:

[vertinox (846076)]

I would genuinely like to know why you disagree.

Well I disagree primarily because it isn't taking care of the root cause of the problem. Which the human.

No amount of legislation of social engineering can fix the fact that humans are bad drivers.

The only solution is of something something like this [com.com].

Newsflash: "Legal" doesn't always equal "safe"...

[WIAKywbfatw (307557)]

First of all, I'll point out the blindingly obvious. Something can be legal yet still be unsafe.

In the case of driving, you could quite easily be driving along the road and be in danger, not least of all because you don't drive in isolation: all those other cars and other vehicles around you are only a split-second away from presenting you with a multi-ton hazard that could potentially end your life.

When you're driving from A to B, your priority should be to get their safely:

1. without causing a hazard to y

What if a passenger is making the call?

[leptonhead (791323)]

Automatic law enforcement is cheap but it's not the way to go. Make it illegal and slap offenders with a hard punishment to deter people. It works well enough with all other reasonable laws, so why do it differently with this one?

Total Information Awareness will fix it all.

[twitter (104583)]

Don't worry, they will know who's car and phone are in use. By RFID's they can be reasonably certain it's you, unless someone borrows all of your clothes, ha ha. If that's not enough, the 300 times a day your picture will be taken can trace exactly where you are. So don't worry about getting tickets because your passenger makes a call, worry that you are a cow - numbered, observed, medicated and stripped of all ability to protest and learn anything real about the world around them. Total Information Awa

Re:

[dangitman (862676)]

Why is it a good idea to massively generate tickets and have the courts handle them? It is a waste of time and tax payers' money.

Hang on, I thought it was a massive revenue-raising scheme. the fact is that most people won't go to court, because they know they were breaking the law. Like I said, the machines are very accurate. Such systems actually save taxpayers money.

First, someone has to show up as defense. Second, you can always request the tape to be shown. If one of these are not present, then you win by default. Easy.

That doesn't make any sense. The offender is the defense. If you don't show up as defense, then you will not win. Why would you win by not showing up to court?

Secondly, these machines give photographic evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "the tape," as it is u

Driver only?

[LinuxGeek (6139)]

So does this detect the driver speaking on a cell phone or simply someone in the car talking on a cell phone? TFA did not give details. Seems like a big problem if they mistakenly identify a car and a ticket is issued for a passenger using a phone.

Clarify For Me

[Bob9113 (14996)]

I support drunk driving laws. And I have heard that cell driving is similar in impairment to drink driving (though I think the studies so far have been less than perfectly rigorous). So that makes me tend to support the idea of cell driving laws.

However, at the same time, I see plenty of erratic and dangerous drivers who aren't talking on cell phones. Why is a cell driving law a better idea than simply getting tougher on poor driving? Or at least shouldn't getting tougher on poor driving come first?

It seems like the main (or at least first) question should not be, "Are you on a cell phone?" but, "Do you present a risk to others?"

Re:

[Donniedarkness (895066)]

I agree with you completely. I fully believe that there are people out there who can talk on a phone with no change in their driving skills (and also, people who can't drive worth a damn while operating a motor vehicle). The solution isn't to ban cell phones + driving, but to get a little more harsh about BAD driving. Besides, what's the differnce between talking to a passenger while driving a stick-shift and talking on a cell phone?

Goes Too Far

[blueZhift (652272)]

I don't see a system that shoots paintballs or shuts off cell phones getting too far in the US. This really goes too far and can potentially create more chaos than it is worth. I can almost hear the lawsuits being filed now the first time one of those paintballs causes a wreck, or when a physician talking to a patient has his/her phone disabled rushing to the hospital. Technology is a great thing, but ultimately laws should be enforced via human education and discipline.

What about talking on your cellphone is criminal?

[cenonce (597067)]

I communte 80 miles roundtrip to my office. I don't like when people are wondering all over the road and then I realize they are talking on their cell phone. But heck, what makes that behavior rise to the level of criminality? Doesn't civil law amply address the issue of irresponsible people who cause accidents when talking on their cell phone (or eating a bag of Doritos, putting on make-up, reading the paper, futzing with the Nav system... whatever...)?

We should ban radios and children in cars too

[WalterGR (106787)]

Instead of police officers needing to observe a cellphone in use, the system automatically detects a cell phone call and records which car was making the call.

The system should also automatically detect children in the car, and report those to the police. Or how about radios? That's easy - just report every car. From here [esteybomberger.com]:

Around 98 percent of reported accidents involve a single distracted driver concentrating not on the road, but rather on one of the following:

• (snip)
• Child/Passenger Distraction (9%)
• Adjusting Radio/CD (7%)
• Cell Phone (6%)

(Of course, I understand that radios in cars are far more common than cell phones. Was merely making a point.)

"but it should be.."

[geekoid (135745)]

No it shouldn't.

Distracted driving should be a crime. IF the person is observed driving distracted, then ticket them. I don't care why they were distracted, whether it is cell phone use, putting on make up, or getting a blow job.

Re:

[Sax Maniac (88550)]

Maybe, maybe not. By that logic you could argue that DUI should not be illegal, just crashing into people. Otherwise you are infriging on the rights of people who are perfectly capable of driving drunk.

But but but...

[w3woody (44457)]

If you outlaw blow jobs, then only outlaws will get blow jobs.

The system does not zap/paintball your car.

[e9th (652576)]

The company's site explains (in annoying Flash) that the system merely photographs the car. Later, the photos are manually inspected to determine whether it was the driver who was using the phone.

So where's my insurance rebate?

[gelfling (6534)]

Tell you what, Nanny State, you criminalize the phone. But in exchange I want massive reductions in my car insurance because now everyone is safe and snug.

Re:So where's my insurance rebate?

[gelfling (6534)]

If something is SUCH a problem as to require legal prohibition you can be damn sure I demand a rebate. Apparently cell phones are a bigger menace than smoking crack while getting head while running from the cops. OK fair enough. And since 3 out of 4 people I see driving are also talking on the phone it must be such a national calamity as to require the Big Boot of Mother Government to stomp in and save me. Literally, save me because I must be on a grease slicked highway to hell. So - given that, I want, no I demand the actuaries to look again at what can only be a massive reduction in the billions of people perishing every day on America's highways of death.

distractions

[grapeape (137008)]

I have no problem as long as their is equal effort in citing drivers for loud music, eating, putting on makeup, shaving, smoking, having their dog run back and forth on the front seat, DVD players active while driving, reading billboards, applying bumper stickers or any other things that drivers do all the time that lead to distraction.

I work as a consultant, I have to answer my phone or I have no business. I do use a hands free device and its usually very short but based on this logic tuckers shouldn't have cb's and cops shouldn't have their radios. Bad drivers are going to be bad drivers regardless of whether there is a phone involved.

If there has to be a law, make it one that requires hands free devices that can be cited only when being pulled over for another offense, much like the way most states enforce seatbelt laws. That kind of leads to another question why is wearing a motorcycle helmet considered a personal choice yet wearing a seat belt isn't?

Dont fool yourself this has nothing to do with protecting people or even getting people to drive more responsibly, its all about revenue.

Not just cell phones

[badc0ffee (969714)]

I was driving down the freeway with all the other traffic doing about 70MPH when I noticed this blond in the car next to me putting on her makeup in the rear view mirror. She started creeping into my lane, and upset me so much I dropped my cell phone into my coffee, which got my donuts all wet and soggy.

I go for a bicycle ride every morning and have noticed that in about 1 of 4 cars, the driver is either not looking at the road while dialing, talking or just finishing a call. If I have to cross traffic, I make sure the driver sees and acknowledges my presence. If they are on a cell phone, even at a stop sign, they are either oblivious to my presence or the invisibility cloak is working.

What. The. Fuck.

[Palshife (60519)]

What does it mean to attach a "paint gun mark" to a car? That sounds vaguely like "shooting a car with a paint gun." That's remarkably unsafe for a device that's supposed to save lives. Can it successfully detect if the user has his window rolled down or his convertible top down? Will it miss pedestrians? Damage the car?

And what makes them think that an "EMP gun" can properly localize its effect to disable only the cell phone while leaving the vital elecronic components of the car intact? Not to mention that an EMP pulse doesn't temporarily disable the phone, it destroys its circuitry. No more phone. Have they done any studies to see if a badly timed EMP makes the battery catch fire in the users hand?

And hey, what about the users complying with hands-free laws? They must get their phones fried too, since I'm fairly sure there's no way to distinguish between the two modes of operation aside from, yep, you guessed it, looking at the user.

This is about 17 terrible, halfway thought out ideas. Either April Fools day came late this year or this is a company that really likes the concept of bankruptcy.

Problems

[ls -la (937805)]

A few problems with this:
1. I saw nothing about checking whether it was the driver or passenger using the cellphone.
2. They will get sued out of existence the first time the automatic paintball gun hits a nice new expensive car.
3. The EMP.
-- Cars nowadays are highly dependent on their electronic controls. How would the EMP not disable them?
-- If any electronics besides the cellphone are disabled, that would also lead to a lawsuit the company likely could not win.

In short, there are too many problems for this to be practical.

Hyperbole, Hoax, BS... Shenanigans!

[DigitalSorceress (156609)]

WOW, this is so completely bogus it's not even funny. The "Company" site is amateurish at best, paint balls thudding on the car could CAUSE an accident, and EMP would take out not only the phone (permanently), but also the car computer, and all other electronics in a fairly decent radius, causing the car to halt where it is rather abruptly.

This product is totally bogus and will never happen as stated in this article. That doesn't even cover legal cell phone use with hands-free and /or the possibility that isn't the PASSENGER.

I Call Shenanigans on this!

Re:

[TommydCat (791543)]

How about my handsfree system?

From what I've seen, it's mainly the fact that you are holding a taco on the side of your head that requires some effort to ensure it remains there and obscures your field of vision not only by blocking one side of your head but making it difficult to turn your head and see all areas around your car. I can't count how many times I've seen someone talking on their phone on the left side of their head, making a subtle motion that they are glancing in the lane to their left, th

Re:Here it comes

[Sunburnt (890890)]

why not flood us with links to statistical studies proving your inferred point?

I'll start. [nsc.org]

From the study:

The principal findings for this experiment are that: (a) SPs [study participants] that engaged in cell phone conversations missed twice as many simulated traffic signals as when they were not talking on the cell phone, (b) SPs took longer to react to those signals that they did detect, and (c) these deficits were equivalent for both hand-held and hands-free cell phone users.

Re:

[quixote9 (999874)]

The studies are not flawed, have been repeated with the same results so many times I've lost track, and refer to an actual cognitive impairment that has nothing to do with hands-free sets, eating french fries, or listening to the radio. We're social animals and our brains are wired to give social interaction priority.

The two couldn't be in conflict in the good old Paleolithic because if you were doing something where your life was at stake and that required total concentration everybody with you was in

Re:

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Talking to another person in the car, eating french fries, etc, is at least if not more distracting.

I can't speak to eating french fries, but I do know why speaking to a passenger isn't as dangerous. The passenger is in the car with you can see things going on just as well as you can. So they're less likely to speak at inopportune times. They also tend to keep their own eyes on the road while speaking, so they can alert you if they see a danger that you don't.

Re:Here it comes

[russ1337 (938915)]

There was a radio breakfast show in Melbourne Australia talking to the legendary (and not very bright) Warwick Capper [wikipedia.org] who they were interviewing by phone while he was in his car. Warwick says he has to put the phone down because there is a cop up ahead and does so... you then heard the high-pitch thick aussie accent shrill of a female saying "Warrick.... I'm the one driving".

Re:Teach people to multi-task

[Cyberax (705495)]

The key difference is that you can't usually crash your airliner if you lose attention for a split second.

A car traveling at 80kph makes 22 meters per second, that's more than the width of the average road. And all you need to die is to lose control for a moment.

Re:it's just a hidden tax

[BroadwayBlue (811404)]

But why single out talking on cell phones? Where is the system to detect an intense conversation with a passenger, changing the radio station, fumbling with the A/C controls in a rental car, a crying baby in the back seat.... We've accepted that driving is hazardous. Everybody on the road knows it. News flash, there are irresponsible or distracted drivers out there; look out! A driver should be able to safely speed away from someone that is doing something that is stupid. A driver should be able to call the police when they drive by someone who is in trouble. Driving will always by a highly variable and highly hazardous situation that one voluntarily puts themselves in. That little yellow line isn't going to stop someone from drifting over onto your side of the road. You have to pay attention constantly. It shouldn't matter what other people are doing; assume everyone is drunk, distracted, or whatever and adjust your driving accordingly. Stop worrying about them and make sure you are doing what is necessary to stay safe. You only have control of your own situation. A thousand laws won't give you control over someone else.

Re:

[Sunburnt (890890)]

Get rid of the DUI laws, the cell-phone laws, etc, and just ban "dangerous driving".

Why, because leaving the nature of charges up to the discretion of individual law enforcement officers has worked so well in the past?

Thanks, but no thanks. If I'm going to be charged with a crime for which my license could potentially be suspended, or for which I might well go to jail, I demand that the state be able to precisely determine the nature of my violation.

Re:

[Attila Dimedici (1036002)]

The problem I have with this is that it compares to .08 blood alcohol. The legal limit is .08 because an organization which gained respect for its early efforts to get communities to enforce drunk driving laws at all (MADD...I remember when police officers would often tell drunk drivers to be careful and let them go on their way) decided that was the most stringent level that the public would support. MADD's goal is to make .02 blood alcohol the legal drunk driving limit (I'm sorry I no longer have the link

Re:

[shaitand (626655)]

'Just because some people aren't able to deal with distractions and prioritize driving doesn't mean that others can't do it perfectly safely.'

Just because you think you can deal with distractions doesn't mean you can. Just like driving after a couple of beers, everyone thinks they can. Even when they do in an accident they will probably blame something else.

'putting the phone down and ignoring the conversation when driving demands your attention'

You can't accurately assess whether driving demands your full