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.

Re:Sooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better be something better than blow up.... http://realdoll.com/ [realdoll.com] Where she might help you even get out of a ticket if caught, in exchange for a favor...

Re:Legal cell phone use

[tfoss]

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

The system does not zap/paintball your car.

[e9th]

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.

Re:Here it comes

[Sunburnt]

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:Im all for banning cellphone useage by drivers

[that this is not und]

In my '06 Ford Ranger, there is a complicated procedure you can follow to electronically disable the seatbelt alarm. It involves a sequence of 'fasten belt x times, etc.' and I haven't yet verified it works. But it's published in the owner's manual. Check your owner's manual. The feature might not be described (or available) in non-truck models.

Re:Sooo...

[iamhassi]

"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 group [realestatejournal.com]. Realtors live off their cellphone, business would be nearly impossible without being able to answer their phones 24/7.

Re:Sooo...

[soloha]

Why do they need to "invent" a separate system at all. Most modern phones have GPS built in, which can be used to determine velocity. I would say anyone traveling over 25 MPH is probably in some sort of vehicle. The GPS could also be used to determine if the location was on a "road". Admittedly this still faces the problem of determining whether the person talking was a driver or a passenger.

Re:Legal cell phone use

[pete-classic]

I live (and ride) in Denver. All numbers are 10 digits here. That may inflate my impression of the impact of dialing.

-Peter

Re:Sooo...

[Original Replica]

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:What's the difference?

[Original Replica]

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-freeconver sations.html [siu.edu]

Re:Sooo...

[tibike77]

And before you tell me to RTFA linked in the grandparent post, I *HAVE* read the article.

Notice how their test DIDN'T include in their actual test phase a "passenger conversation" experiment phase at all.
Also, the difference between hands-free sets and normal sets were minimal... but then again the experiment only required one hand, not two (and most non-US cars are driven with two hands, not one).
I could go to lengthy detail in pointing out further defficiencies in their procedure (so the experiment is close to meaningless for real-life situations), about the insignificant increase in "miss rates" and so on and so forth, but I don't really have to.

So, why don't I have to ?
Because their own CONCLUSION was that the CONVERSATION itself provided the distraction, as opposed to doing nothing, listening to the radio or a book on tape.
In other words, talking to a passenger or talking on the phone is equally distracting and accident-prone.

Re:Sooo...

[Sunburnt]

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.