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.
Sooo... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sooo... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
Headsets or speaker phones being safer while driving is a myth.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but this has already [slashdot.org] been hashed out.
Short answer: Because this -
- is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 concent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (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:Like seatbelt laws.... (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
You need silence for that? Shit. I must be Michael Schumacher or something.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a joke, that is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal cell phone use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-Ted
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
99% of the time I'm talking on my hands-free headset it's to my wife and she's droning on and on about something that I'm not even paying attention to anyway. It might as well be a talk show playing in the background, but to her it's quality time I'm spending engaging in conversation with her even though it's just the occas
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onstar#Advocacy [wikipedia.org]
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: (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: (Score:2)
Also: cellphone car bugs (Score:2)
In one case the agency bugged a car for a month, until the operators of the system demanded they cease and desist because the monopolization of the channel was imparing their emergency service. (Not to mention that, if the buggee had been involved in an actual emergeny, hitting the button would have made
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 y
What if a passenger is making the call? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, how do you prove that someone was talking ona phone while driving? That's much harder to do than detecting speeding or blood alcohol levels.
Anyway, what is wrong with "automatic law enforcement"? It works very well with speed cameras - the automatic systems are much more accurate and fair than the manual ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. It's amazing how many people consider talking on the phone to be as great a necessity as concentrating on the operation of driving.
And yes, I understand that some people receive urgent phone calls while driving. That's nice, but too small a factor to explain the prevalence of this behavior. I've been in a car with someone who suffers from the following laughable bi
Re: (Score:2)
No is doesn't. Unless by 'works' you mean generates more revenue.
Consider:
Some state ticket the vehical when using cameras, not the person breaking the law.
In most(if not all) cases the yellow light is shortened to specifically generate more tickets.
The do not reduce traffic accidents or violators. The only time violations is decreased is during the first few weeks, if people are aware the camera has been installed. All accidents in intersection is caused by someo
Re: (Score:2)
No is doesn't. Unless by 'works' you mean generates more revenue.
No, I mean that it works. In that, it is very accurately detects speed, and photographs the offending vehicle. Very accurate. None of this "I saw you driving too fast... and by the way you are black" stuff. None of that "I didn't see you speeding, Mr. Mayor" stuff either.
Some state ticket the vehical when using cameras, not the person breaking the law.
In that case, you declare who was driving the vehicle at the time, and they go after them instead.
In most(if not all) cases the yellow light is shortened to specifically generate more tickets.
Evidence? I heard that happened in some cases, but I believe that was dealt with in court. Where do you get the idea that it happens i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 Awa
Driver only? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also: Does it distinguish a phone being rung from one being used for a conversation?
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?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Difference... (Score:2)
Practical politics (Score:2)
If nobody was allowed to drive without being trained and tested to the same safety standards as pilots then you wouldn't have those bad drivers. But anyone who tried to introduce such a law would get instantly voted out of office by the vast numbers of bad drivers who would lose their licences under the new regime.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you're ignoring one crucial difference... you can always hang up the phone in the car, but you can't sober up on the way home. So while I also support anti-cell driving laws, I think that it's important not to persecute them the same way as drunk driving,
Goes Too Far (Score:4, Insightful)
What passengers? (Score:2)
Next time you are in city traffic, look around and note how many people are in a car where a cell phone is being used in a non-hands free manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, the send me a ticket I can say "I was car pooling not driving." or "I was on the bus"
Automated law enforcement is always flawed.
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...)?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, because those accidents are far too common - and few people are prosecuted because of it. I think the idea is to reduce the accidents in the first place. Civil law after the fact can't bring victims back to life, so it doesn't really address the problem at all.
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But but but... (Score:4, Funny)
Mythbusters... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To yourself.
'Plus, being fat makes you less likely to hurt yourself if you do fall (we'll ignore the increasingly likelihood of falling because of severe fatness.)'
Why are we ignoring that again? In any case, that all impacts yourself.
'Bad speech can piss people off and others can get offended.'
Last I checked bad speech IS banned in public. In private where others have the option of leaving (or you can ask them to leave) it is no
Re: (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
The system does not zap/paintball your car. (Score:3, Informative)
So where's my insurance rebate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: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: (Score:2)
I think if you are over 18, then it is up to you to wear a helmet or seat belt.
You should wear one, it just shouldn't be up to the government to make the decsion.
Not just cell phones (Score:4, Funny)
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 about blackberry users? (Score:2)
Just because you can ... (Score:2)
No, this is just plain stupid. I (and others here) have been able to come up with really simple reasons why this is a bad idea
Re: (Score:2)
I smell lawsuits.
Can it techno-magically detect Blackberry's, SMS? (Score:2)
What about Blackberrys? They are quite chatty.
GMs OnStar system uses cell technology. What about them?
I would rather see law makers think about what they do and allocate resources to enforce laws, and not expect technic-magically enforcement.
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 a
Where are the studies? (Score:2)
Great. Now just tell us where these studies are so we can evaluate them, rather than inviting us to give sheep-like acceptance to the idea.
Wrong. (Score:2)
No it shouldn't. ANYTHING can distract a driver--the radio, passengers, kids yelling in the car, stupid fucking ads on the side of the road that are getting more and more brazen every day, etc etc etc. Should we just make all of that illegal?
Drunk driving is illegal for a reason--there's no good reason to drink and drive. There are, however, many good reasons to talk on the phone while driving. I agree that talking on t
My Solution (Score:2)
Asshat (Score:2)
There are already laws for dangerous driving in EVERY state.
We don't need more laws.
It's covered.
Oh, but you say if you outlaw cellphone driving, people would stop doing it.
Right, just like drunk driving.
You, sir, are an asshat.
*1 for SmarTraveler...not from your car? (Score:2)
Obviously the authorities think it's a good idea and want you to access it on your cellular phone. You can also access it via the web and of course via landline phones, so if the authori
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.
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: (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, th
Re:Here it comes (Score:5, Informative)
I'll start. [nsc.org]
From the study:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (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 drivi
Re: (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.
Re:Here it comes (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing this isn't about speeding, then. Talking on a phone while driving is probably more dangerous than drunk driving. Yet it is extremely difficult to enforce. People who drink-drive are often subject to confiscation of license, and jail time. Why shouldn't people who engage in activities as dangerous as that also be penalized.
If you want to avoid this (and other) "taxes" - then all you have to do is obey the road laws. It's hardly a "tax" if it is easily avoidable. You don't need to speed, and you d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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:it's just a hidden tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But why single out talking on cell phones?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. They already go after speeding and drunk driving. It's not like they are going to stop doing that and only go after cellphone users.
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....
I think that system is called "patrol cars," and yes, they are underused. They should do something about that as well.
A driver should be able to call the police when they drive by someone who is in trouble.
What's wrong with stopping to make the call? Or, heaven forbid, stopping to give assistance?
You only have control of your own situation. A thousand laws won't give you control over someone else.
but it could reduce the number of dangerous drivers on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
"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..." aren't illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn statistics (Score:2)
I remember in a couple of states that the police, for a while, outlawed the use of CB radios under the guise of it being dangerous because you took 1 hand off of the steering wheel.
The study needs to determine if the the person has the ability to talk and drive at the same time. There are some people I have seen driving who lack the brain power to breath and drive at the same tim
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not.
Speed limits are a lowest-common-denominator. Sure, YOU are a good enough driver to handle your low-center-of-gravity perfectly-maintained sports car on a clear day at video-game level speeds. But do you want a half-blind arthritic senior-citizen driving his top-heavy worn-down SUV at those speeds?
Re: (Score:2)
" But do you want a half-blind arthritic senior-citizen driving his top-heavy worn-down SUV at those speeds?"
I don't want him driving at any speed. Yes, I do realize I will be that person, and I hope to hell my family takes my keys away. I fact, I think the test to get a Driver lisense should be substantially harder.
You must be able to drive on the freeway, you must be able to parellel park, you must have decent vision, you must have a decent refleesx, you must be able to hear, and you must be
Re: (Score:2)
That's missing the point entirely. Everyone can pass a drivers test eventually, and then it's over with. It doesn't matter how badly you drive after that, as long as you don't get your license taken away, you're still licensed.
I'd say, you've got to pass a drivers test every 10 years, and after you reach a certain age, you're to be tested annually. Otherwise, people are just going to study to pass the test, no matter how tough you make
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
What we need to be doing is including talking on a mobile phone while staying safe on driving tests.
So, you penalize safety-conscious people who don't use mobile phones while driving, and at the same time, encourage driving with a phone? That doesn't sound very productive.
Drivers should be taught to focus on driving and minimize distractions. Using the phone is not necessary while driving. It has nothing to do with the operational radio communications that a pilot performs. And the phone system is not optimized for driving, like the radio system is for flying. Aircraft also tend not to fly in close pro
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a two-second emergency in an airplane, someone dropped the ball. If you have a two-second emergency in an automobile, well, you're just in rush hour traffic.
(Not to mention that re-testing everyone on the road is as impractical as deporting every