New System Detects Calls While Driving 421
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.
Im all for banning cellphone useage by drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
And what the hell is this shooting your car with paintballs? Or EMPing all your electronics? WTF?
Legal cell phone use (Score:5, Insightful)
What if a passenger is making the call? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here it comes (Score:3, Insightful)
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, then trying to change lanes on top of me since they didn't actually look.
Driving with a taco on the side of your head has been made unlawful in many states, but handsfree systems for the most part are ok. How is this new system going to distinguish between the two?
Instead of posting something stupid like "brace yourself for a flood of comments" (DUH), why not flood us with links to statistical studies proving your inferred point?
Clarify For Me (Score:4, Insightful)
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?"
Goes Too Far (Score:4, Insightful)
What about talking on your cellphone is criminal? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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]:
(Of course, I understand that radios in cars are far more common than cell phones. Was merely making a point.)
"but it should be.." (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
So where's my insurance rebate? (Score:4, Insightful)
distractions (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Teach people to multi-task (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's just a hidden tax (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Legal cell phone use (Score:3, Insightful)
But there are also quick/short/to-the-point conversations. "Honey, there's construction on the freeway I'm going to be late tonight." "Son, a package is coming in from UPS. Can you be around today to sign for it?" Etc
Personally, I try to limit any phone calls (through my OnStar system) to short/auto-pilot conversations. They rarely get close to the 1 minute mark and require little thought on my end. Unfortunately there's no way to determine what kind of conversation you're having or how much you're concentrating, short of listening in or perhaps looking at the call time.
What most should think about this.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Goddamn.. how the fuck does this make it to the front page of Slashdot? The article suggests using an EMP gun to disable the offending cell phone? So, it's some kind of perfect EMP that targets ONLY the cell phone and ignores the car's electronic systems - systems REQUIRED for slamming on the brakes... What the fuck?
And, the system not only can distinguish between drivers and passengers talking on the cell phones... but it can also detect whether drivers are properly using bluetooth devices.. or even built-into-the-car bluetooth devices that enable hands-free talking at all times?
God.. what a bunch of fucking total morons. Seriously.. whoever decides money needs spending on this crap.. whoever decides a knee-jerk reactionary law banning use of cell phones while driving because they're distracting just because it's newfangled technology that everyone seems to agree is fucking useful while ignoring all other distractions that have been around forever - eating, talking to passengers, looking at scenery, smoking, doing drugs, reading directions, playing with the fucking stereo, road head..
Seriously.. whoever takes this seriously needs to understand that he or she is a fucking moron who needs to start thinking about the entire picture and quit trying to solve society's problems with one specific fucking instant knee-jerk at a time.
God.. fucking morons.. FUCK YOU.
Re:Legal cell phone use (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Here it comes (Score:2, Insightful)
Hands free cell phone use is not as distracting. Just go out and try it sometime. I may sound anecdotal, but I'm right. It's like saying the sky is blue, obviously hands-free is safer than holding your arm up to your head and obstructing your vision.
I think the accident rate is more likely attributable to the fact that reckless people are more likely to use a cell phone when driving, not that cell phones are inherently more dangerous than other things done while driving.
And how many times does mythbusters need to be debunked? It's a TV show with an editorial decision made bout results. They are always very predictable.
I don't like cell phone use in the car, but this is a stupid system. How about we stop giving out tickets for speeding and use that manpower to patrol, unmarked, and videotape the really awful drivers out there. A 12 person jury could then sentence reckless drivers to a large fine and a year long driving suspension. You would see fewer road ragers and red light runners and general assholes, but people who are just being normal are fine to responsibly use the phone or speed. Assholes would be afraid to drive badly.
Too bad this doesn't give much power/money to bureaucrats.
Re:Here it comes (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Newsflash: "Legal" doesn't always equal "safe"... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 yourself and others; and
2. without falling foul of any hazards that others might cause you.
It doesn't take a genius to see that anything that distracts your attention from anything that might fall into the second category, or that decreases your reaction time, could potentially kill you.
Anybody who thinks that a hands-free kit will mitigate the risks of driving whilst talking on a phone is deluded. Multiple studies have been carried out on this subject and, to my knowledge, all have clearly shown that the ability of a driver to deal with road hazards is just as impeded when he's talking via a hands-free kit as it would be if he was cradling the phone next to his head. (Which, by the way, is about the same level of impairment that you'd experience if you were drunk.)
If you want to test this yourself then try this out. Fire up your favourite RTS, FPS or MMORPG and get busy killing. Then make a hands-free call to a friend whilst attempting to play the game at your usual tempo. Keep talking and listening to the other person as you would do if you weren't playing the game (obviously, don't talk about the game, talk about something different!) and I guarantee you that you gameplay will suffer, simply because you react to things less quickly than you would have .
Now translate that loss of performance to the road. And then work out what matters most, that phone call or your personal safety.
Do yourselves, your passengers and those around you all a favour. Save the phone calls for when you get there.
Re:What if a passenger is making the call? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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 usually a still photograph (either on film, or a digital image) and the machines are certified and accepted as evidence in court. Why would there be no evidence, when you have been given the ticket based on evidence? if that didn't exist, you wouldn't get the ticket in the first place.
Re:Mythbusters... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 attention unless you are giving it your full attention in the first place.
'Once you become skilled at driving, there are certainly some spare fractions of seconds that can be used for other tasks, as long as driving is the highest priority.'
For every driver who can ACTUALLY do this, there are hundreds who think they can. People are overconfident and frankly, most are stupid. I am all for personal freedom and preferences, right up to the point when we are talking about something that kills thousands of people every year.
Licensed, mature, responsible adults have already proven they can't drive safely. Just look at the current automotive death tolls. I guarantee that if you subtract the number due to natural conditions like ice, the number won't be appreciably smaller. Those deaths are caused by the elderly, shaving/putting on makeup on the way to work, blow drying hair on the way to work, eating while driving, talking to passengers while driving, cellphones, drinking, maybe a small fraction from prescription medications and other drugs. Although my experiences of youth are that the last either don't impair motor function as badly as drinking (read smoking pot) or impair it to the point where starting a vehicle isn't a possibility in the first place.
You can argue all day long that cellphone use is safe if done responsibly but when put to the test at 3 or 4 atypical people were astonished to find that driving drunk was safer. When I say atypical of course we are talking about the mythbusters team and frankly they are definitely brighter and more capable than your average adult. They are also easily old enough to qualify for the experienced and skilled driver mark.
What. The. Fuck. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:it's just a hidden tax (Score:3, Insightful)
great hear comes the butt pounding (Score:2, Insightful)
This system is greatly flawed, because micro waves comeing from a car is now indicative that your using your cell while driving in an unsafe way. lol wonder what they'll do with more than one signal coming from the same car??? lol I GOT IT....the driver MUST have been using both at the same time and the backseat passenger MUST have reached his arms around the driver to keep on driving.
Total Information Awareness will fix it all. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 Awareness of them means total control and oblivion for you.
Hyperbole, Hoax, BS... Shenanigans! (Score:4, Insightful)
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
I Call Shenanigans on this!
Re:What's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 concentrating exclusively on driving. The problem is that people generally don't concentrate exclusively on driving, even if they're not using a cell phone. Doing most tasks while driving distracts you and increases your chance of having an accident. But using a cell phone isn't any worse than many other things people routinely do. Using an iPod is worse. (Link is to a PDF.) Eating is just as bad but you don't see people screaming to make drive up windows at fast food restaurants illegal. If there was any truth to the claim that "...Statistics show that driving while talking on the cell phone increases the chance of an accident by 400 %..." (Quote taken from the article, for those who didn't read it) then there would have been a significant increase in the rate of traffic accidents as cell phone use became more common. No such increase is to be found. Accidents are flat or decreasing per mile traveled in recent years.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Sooo... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legal cell phone use (Score:3, Insightful)
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].
Re:So where's my insurance rebate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here it comes (Score:2, Insightful)
What I think is worst is, that some countries (and probably next in the US), the text message system popularity has grown so much, that some people believe they are skilled enough to type messages while driving. Some of them, because it's cheaper send messages (in other countries), some others, because they "don't want to get caught" by the cops.
Stupidity is really amazing!
Re:Sooo... (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy. If you start paying too much attention to a conversation with your wife, and start driving recklessly, she's likely to, "Hey, dindi, eyes on the road" Or perhap, "Woah! Stop! Red light!" That an accident will cost her time, and possibly injury or death, gives her incentive to pay attention. The person on the other end of the cell phone has no way to knowing if you're compromising your driving by focusing on the conversation.
Yes, this means that children who are less aware of road safety do present a real increase in danger in a car. I assume that's obvious. Tradeoffs must be made; muzzling your kids is regrettably child abuse is too many jusidictions.
Or to put it another way. Sure, you're a good solid driver, and perhaps the risk of your talking on a cell phone is negligable. But have you seen the other idiots they let onto the road? We need traffic laws designed not for the top 50% of drivers, but for the bottom 50%. The bottom 50% doesn't tend to recognize that they're worse than median drivers, so they'll cheerfully assume it's safe for them to drive faster than the speed limit, to roll through a stop sign, and talk on their cell phone, just like the top 50%.
Re:Sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)