NHTSA and DOT Want Your Car To Be Able To Disable Your Cellphone Functions 405
savuporo writes "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Department of Transportation are considering technological solutions for people to stop using their cellphones while driving. Proximity detectors or requiring physical link with the car are the solutions under the scope. From the article: 'NHTSA wants automakers to make it impossible to enter text for messaging and internet browsing while the car is in motion, disable any kind of video functionality and prevent text-based information such as social media content or text messages from being displayed.' Obviously these regulations would need to go beyond cellphones, as laptop, tablet or any other gadget with a 3G data connection or even on a wi-fi hotspot made by your phone would be equally distracting."
First (Score:5, Insightful)
passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you differentiate and only disable the driver's phone, how do you stop the drivers borrowing a passenger's phone? There isn't a technological solution to this, only legal ones (which already exist).
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
Not if you're a service tech at a modern car dealer: For some makes, having the car have an Internet connection (to communicate with the manufacturer) is a currently useful diagnostic aid during a test drive when attempting to sort out driveability issues.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. For example, my car (Tesla model S) has an always-on 3G Internet connection. It is used for streaming music, maps and Internet (it does not disable the browser while driving). There is talk of charging money for the Internet connection once the WIFI feature is enabled or else allow teathering with a cell phone to provide the connection. The Internet connection is also used to improve voice recognition and for other services. The Internet connection is not just used for browsing or chat/email.
Then there's also the case where a passenger might want to use the Internet on a laptop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
I use my phone's hotspot function to provide internet access for my kid's Android tablets and Nintendo DSi devices during long duration trips. Disabling all internet access would be a huge bummer resulting in even more "are we there yet?" situations then I already get. I also frequently stream music from my phone through my car's built-in stereo bluetooth. While we all want to save lives the reality is that "distracted driving" is caused not by technology but by human nature. Take away the tech and we'll just find some other distraction. Driving a car is so "second nature" in American culture that most of don't apply the level of concentration to the task that we should. Ever drive while juggling a hamburger and a soda?
My personal worst offense was over a decade ago when I pulled out my laptop and played a game of Quake 2 while "driving." In my defense, I was stuck behind an accident in a construction zone where traffic moved MAYBE three full meters during that two hour wait. Other drivers were out of their cars walking around so it seamed like a safe bet to pass the time with a distraction rather than get upset at the situation.
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
Ever drive while juggling a hamburger and a soda?
I try not to juggle while driving. It's not really a safe thing to do.
Don't be such a nervous nellie (Score:3)
Wimp. Start out with hamburgers, add the soda and fries once you've got that down, and you'll be juggling chainsaws on the Interstate in no time!
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
How did people ever manage without electronic devices to numb their kids' brains?
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The wheels on the bus go round and round...
Re: (Score:3)
... and this is why children were beaten or forced to work.
Re: (Score:3)
Chloroform
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
They managed because the kids weren't confined to child seats until they're 13yo (or whatever the new ridiculous age is). On long trips, we'd climb over seats, make faces from the rear-facing trundle seat, read books, play with toys, and sleep laying fully down with only a lap belt (the rear seats had only lap belts).
...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.
Which obviously didn't happen in this case, otherwise OP wouldn't have been able to tell the tale. Then, of course, there's the absolute fact that even with all of modern living's fancy safety devices, people still get killed in car crashes. So it goes.
In case you weren't aware, people die
every
single
day.
A lot of them, actually, and often in needless circumstances. It's a fact of life: everything dies.
So, what was the point of your comment? To say that having the fucking state dictate every single tiny detail of our lives is somehow better than living as free men, because there's a slight improvement on the odds you'll be alive for another couple of minutes? Or maybe you just get your rocks off denigrating the position of others? Dunno; I'm not you, and glad for it.
Here's my point, if I have one: Don't be such an unbearable pussy, that you feel compelled to dictate to others how they should live their lives. It's a real dickhead move, and frankly a lot of us are sick of hearing about how you feel there should be a ban or regulation on everything that scares you.
Fuckin' grow a pair, brah.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.
That's not how you do a cost-benefit analysis. "On occasion" can be perfectly acceptable. Exactly what was the risk of a death for a child dying per mile back then, and what is it now? Notice I didn't say, "what is the risk for a child dying when involved in a collision" or anything like that. You have to take into account the chances of getting into a collision in the first place to determine whether adding the safety features are worth the hassle. Additionally, when comparing the numbers, you'll have to correct for other safety features added in cars, such as better crumple zones that are capable of absorbing more of the energy in an impact.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
They managed because the kids weren't confined to child seats until they're 13yo (or whatever the new ridiculous age is). On long trips, we'd climb over seats, make faces from the rear-facing trundle seat, read books, play with toys, and sleep laying fully down with only a lap belt (the rear seats had only lap belts).
...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.
That's not the point. No one is arguing that better safety is not an improvement over the past. The point is that when you confine a kid they act out more because there is less they can do.
My 20 month old goes stir crazy because she is still stuck in a rear facing car seat. Maybe when she was an infant she could entertain herself staring at the seat upholstery for an hour, but now she sure can't. So after she gets board of her books, toys, and dolls, we'll pass back an iPhone playing Finding Nemo in guided access mode.
So if they ever start putting a device in my car that disables the phone, I'll find out where it's located and take a hammer to it.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash.
Safety isn't desirable at all costs. It is not an improvement to survive if you don't have a chance to live.
When I grew up, kids were allowed to take small risks, including climbing trees and cliffs, riding the back of the truck with the dogs, whittling and carrying a sharp knife, read about evolution, use regular public transportation to and from school, and lots of other things. We lived. And almost all of us survived quite well, not having been cuddled and restricted.
Sometimes, the price of increasing long odds is too high.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a risk management question. What is the risk of some behavior and what is the cost of mitigating that risk?
My 13 year-old daughter likes to climb trees. I'll admit to being a bit unnerved seeing her 40 feet up in a tree. But she's cautious, which reduces the risk. And successfully taking on the the challenge adds to her sense of self-confidence and accomplishment, important qualities for a 13 year-old. On balance I find it to be an acceptable risk.
On the other hand, she wears her seat belt eac
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
They managed by beating the children into submission. The ipad is a much better approach.
I disagree. A Windows 8 tablet is a better approach - much heavier than an ipad, so much more effective when used to beat the children into submission.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution isn't legal, it's social. All those years they spend trying to ban cigarettes, tax them... none of it worked. But the day I heard my niece describe a guy as "gross" for smoking I knew it was doomed as a habit.
Re: (Score:3)
"Even if you differentiate and only disable the driver's phone, how do you stop the drivers borrowing a passenger's phone? There isn't a technological solution to this, only legal ones (which already exist)."
Speaking of existing, there is another problem here: the fact that studies have broken any demonstrable cause-effect relationship between (voice) cell phone use and automobile accidents.
There is a correlation, to be sure. But actual studies done to show a causative effect have come up short. But it's even more solid than that, because real-world data show the same thing: where no-cell-phone laws have been passed, there has been no significant reduction in automobile accidents. And in those areas that sub
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly does one distinguish between HTTP traffic of social media or messaging protocols and "allowed" traffic if those protocols may change or new ones can be invented at any minute?
Re: (Score:3)
passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?
Passengers know when to shut up.
People on the other side of the phone dont.
Re: (Score:3)
passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?
Passengers know when to shut up. People on the other side of the phone dont.
So you wouldn't restrict playing with your passenger's buttons when driving.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he meant to ask whether passengers be restricted from using their phones, not whether they shouldn't be allowed to talk to the driver. Although...
Re: (Score:3)
Passengers know when to shut up.
No. They don't.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
passenger - do you want to restrict them, too?
The Prius does indeed restrict the front seating passenger from using most of its center panel functions when the car is moving, which is really idiotic because it's smart enough to know there is a passenger in the seat (since it will complain loudly when that same passenger doesn't put his seat belt on).
Al Capone (Score:2, Funny)
Want? It's not a question of "want". It's a question of safety, expediency and convenience.
Why, next time I stuff someone in the trunk of my car I won't even have to find and take their phones. Just think how much time and hassle this would save.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you ready for a government owned black box in your car which measures your speed and location, taps into your cell phone, monitors your private messages and internet behaviour? Probably illegal to tamper with, all in the interest of the children?
Re:First (Score:4, Interesting)
Almost as ready for a strawman argument where making murder illegal is the first step towards a total police state.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be a slippery slope if there were even the faint ghostly remains of some content to it. At best, it's an imaginary potentially unperfectly grippy slightly inclined partial slope. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
I absolutely agree, but the focus on phones has got to go. We are not trying to ban the use of phones in cars, we are trying to get the driver to pay attention to driving, and phones (right now) seem to be the biggest culprit. Banning phones in cars still leaves a million - 1 ways to distract a driver.
Rather than try to restrict the near endless possibilities for distraction, we need technology to ensure a driver's attention on the road. For instance, my phone (S3G) has a rather cool feature called Smart Stay; it basically uses the front camera to detect if I'm still looking at the screen, to help decide if the screen should lock.
This feature could be made to work for cars as well, detecting where the driver has his/her attention and (akin to seat belts) make an annoying sound, throttle the engine or whatever else seems to be an appropriate for a driver not paying attention. Obviously work needs to be done, but the general idea is there.
car manufacturer lobbying (Score:4, Informative)
they want to sell in car phones and entertainment systems.
disable all tablets, smartphones etc in car-> you have to buy bolted in tablets from the car manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're referring to is the "dead man's switch" that disables the engine/equipment when the driver is not in his seat/pressing a button or some other trivial option to verify that a driver is present. This works really well for placing blame once the accident has happened, but really doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things (I know, I worked in a warehouse before my IT career - there are fairly trivial ways of disabling the dead man's switch. Last summer a tourist in Copenhagen got run over and kil
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe this could be used as punishment for drivers who are caught using phones? There have been proposals for breath testing systems to be fitted to cars which are owned by people convicted of DUI offences. Similarly, if you get caught with a phone, phones will no longer work in your car.
Re: (Score:2)
I take your point. I ride a bike myself and my phone stays in my back pack. Currently I almost zero enforcement for the use of mobile phones so additional ways to penalise their use may be helpful.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Pissing off a few geeks is worth it.
The problem they'll find is that it isn't really the geeks that'll be pissed off by this. This almost certainly won't apply to public transport (including, I would suspect, licensed public service taxis), so other than people who are actually driving (and therefore perhaps should be restricted from using their phones while the vehicle is in motion) it is the passengers in private vehicles who are most likely to be effected. Who are the people who are frequently passengers in private vehicles and who make above-average use of mobile phones? There are a couple of classes that spring to mind:
1. Business leaders (the kind who can pay for a chauffeur)
2. Politicians (the kind who can convince the state to pay for a chauffeur for them, usually on the premise that it leaves them free to attend to important business while in transit)
This, therefore, is not going to happen.
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
2. Politicians (the kind who can convince the state to pay for a chauffeur for them, usually on the premise that it leaves them free to attend to important business while in transit)
Nah, they'll just vote an exemption for themselves [about.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I want is for people not to be arrogant pricks like you; that ain't gonna happen any time soon either.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? So you think the general population ... most of which are using their cell phones while driving are smart enough to make intelligent decisions themselves ... even though the whole reason this is being brought up is due to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
I'm an arrogant prick because the evidence says that people are too stupid to pay attention to the road?
Really?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, what's the "overwhelming evidence to the contrary"?
More traffic fatalities? Nope, traffic fatalities (both on an absolute basis and per mile travelled) have been trending down for several decades, and are at or near all-time lows.
Ala
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
I must ask, why do you NEED an internet connection in your car?
Because I am a good father. The internet connection in the car allowed me to take a six week road trip with my wife and son. A trip that simply could not have happened if I couldn't have worked during the drive time between stops. The trip was both educational and an amazing bonding experience.
Re:First (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that people made road trips and had entertainment well before smart phones, tablets or even the Internet was invented, right?
You really will survive without it. Believe it or not, there was a time when there was no Internet at all! Yet, Human beings still made road trips, and raised their children without killing them. Even were capable of educating themselves.
I'm really not sure how the tablet your kid is staring at while you were focused on driving helped. You were focused on driving right? Or are you telling us that you are exactly the problem that needs correcting?
Amazingly enough, they allow women to drive, too, these days. Did it really never occur to you that maybe he was working while his wife drove, and the only other option was not to take the vacation at all? That's the only way I can read the GP.
Re: (Score:3)
Pissing off a few geeks is worth it.
You Sir are one of the reasons I think the Second Amendment is worth keeping
Re: (Score:3)
Re: First (Score:4, Informative)
Its clear, even from the summary, that the authorities want to disable specific functions on the phone so that calls to emergency services will still work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My last compact car weighed 3985 lbs curb weight and it was German.
Hmmm... that's about 1.8 metric tons; definitely not what I'd calla a "compact car". My little sports car is just under 1 metric ton. Looking at various German cars on wikipedia that I'd call "compact cars" the weight seems to be around 1.3 metric tons in general.
Examples: Mercedes A Class [wikipedia.org], VW Golf [wikipedia.org].
That weight looks more like a family car to me - e.g. VW Passat [wikipedia.org].
But, as far as I know, the definition of "compact car" is somewhat different in different countries, so it's probably a definition thing more than
Re: (Score:2)
Given that my laptop bag is sufficiently heavy to trigger the seatbelt warning if I simply put it on the passenger seat, I have the feeling that would be rather easy to bypass...
Driver not the only one in the car (Score:5, Insightful)
So how would this proposed system distinguish between the driver using a phone and a passenger using a phone? It's not reasonable to forbid every passenger (who's not driving and has no need to not be distracted) from using any device while someone else is driving.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is about the US, not whatever country you live in where people drive with passengers. That's why the story has a nice US flag next to it. The idea that passengers would be inconvenienced is laughable, it's not like anyone ever drives with other people in their car.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the US...it's not like anyone ever drives with other people in their car.
... maybe if they want to take advantage of the HOV lanes? (ok, ok, I know, a blow-up doll [youtube.com] has no use for a cell phone...)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget the fact that it won't be able to distinguish between the driver using a phone and the driver using a phone because he has an emergency and need to.
Re:Driver not the only one in the car (Score:4, Insightful)
If you block the kids in the back seat too, you might increase the driver's distraction considerably.
Re: (Score:3)
So, what is really needed is a one seated car with no gadgets installed and which block cell phone traffic. CityEl [wikipedia.org], this one has 1 seat and not enough room for you to actually move your hands, let alone use your phone - and certainly no room for kids.
Re: (Score:3)
not enough room for you to actually move your hands
Yeah, hands can be pretty distracting too... especially if you spot a hot stud on the sidewalk...
Re:Driver not the only one in the car (Score:4, Funny)
They will pass a law requiring the kids not to distract the driver! That will fix it! Right after the law requiring kids not to scream their lungs out on flights! It's just that evil conservatives are currently blocking this legislation right now because big business and gun lobby!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make the phone work only when it's either in the back of the car, or the right half of the car if in the front (or the left in countries that drive on the left). If it passes over the transmission tunnel to the left side front then it shuts down. Short range radio transmissions can be used to accomplish this.
Re:Driver not the only one in the car (Score:4, Insightful)
Tech solution for a social problem (Score:5, Insightful)
They're doing it all wrong. You can't solve a social problem with technological features.
There's no way you can make a car that will stop someone from tapping on their ipad, or putting on their makeup.
If you try, they'll just get pissed off, disable the feature, and do it even more to spite you.
The solution is to fix the culture to make it socially unacceptable.
Have the law enforcement officers doing their job.
Jail time for any driver caught texting while in motion.
Re: (Score:2)
Jail time won't fix it. 1st offense you are required to affix stickers to the front, sides, and back reading "Caution: Moron". Second offense you get a flashing strobe and a loudspeaker that repeats "DuuuuuH!" at 100 db. Third offense, they affix a giant 3d rendering of a horses ass to the hood and trunk. If none of that gets the point across, you lose your license for 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
First offense: Cruel, unusual. (I can provide citations.)
Second offense: Noise ordinance violation.
Third offense: Cruel, unusual. (Again.)
Fourth offense: 10 years suspension? I'd rather they spend a week at Ft. Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks. After that, two weeks. Then four.
Re: (Score:2)
Easily gotten around. Offer those punishments in lieu of jail and lost license.
Re:Tech solution for a social problem (Score:4, Funny)
They're doing it all wrong. You can't solve a social problem with technological features.
I don't know ... deodorant does a pretty good job
Re: (Score:2)
It worked with phones in movie theatres so maybe some push to put phones in silent mode in the glove box could do something.
"Pass it to a passenger" (Score:2)
If you're driving and you "need" to be contactable - then give your phone to a passenger and they can handle your calls for you.
As they're in the car with you then they can see what you're doing and so distract you less while keeping the caller occupied.
Dumb, Dumber and now what? (Score:2)
This place is getting really depressing when you have to explain every little thing as if it's to a three year old.
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't be doing either as they disrupt other people's enjoyment of the film, but one-sided conversations are demonstrably significantly more difficult to ignore and thus annoying.
Rgds
Damon
Re:Tech solution for a social problem (Score:5, Insightful)
They're doing it all wrong. You can't solve a social problem with technological features.
No, but you can mitigate it. The problem is real, people are dying on the street today because someone checked his Twitter or Mail while driving. If a technological feature can reduce the number of these incidents by x% - well, ask the x% who would otherwise be dead if they think it's worth it.
The solution is to fix the culture to make it socially unacceptable.
While I agree on that, we do not have a formula on how to do that. Some stuff that we outlaw is also uncool, but some stuff is cool exactly because it's illegal. Laws do not define what's socially acceptable, and we don't know how exactly to change a culture.
The technology solution might not be as good, but at least we know how it can be done. That's a real practical advantage.
Re:Tech solution for a social problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Have the law enforcement officers doing their job.
Jail time for any driver caught texting while in motion.
So close, and yet so far. Guess what? If LEOs did their jobs, we wouldn't need cellphone laws at all. Drivers would simply be ticketed for driving like an asshole, regardless of reason, and not ticketed if they aren't driving like an asshole. See, here's the fundamental problem with a cellphone law: some people drive better while talking on the phone than do other people while focusing on nothing but driving. If the goal is to prevent incompetent driving, we need to institute some serious driver testing and retesting, and take away licenses from people who fail it. But that means that the vast majority of the elderly would have their licenses taken away, and they vote.
When you propose enforcement of a bad law, you are expressing a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no way you can make a car that will stop someone from ... putting on their makeup.
faraday cage built into the frame of the car.
Simple.
...an example of techies failing to understand why social problems are hard to solve with technical means ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's go even further (Score:4, Funny)
It's 2014. You enter your car. Your watch stops -- it poses too much of a distraction. Mandatory reaction time enhancing drugs are automatically injected into your blood as you turn the ignition.
The car revs once, but doesn't move. A breathalyzer test is administered automatically by the car, followed by a urine test and a routine vision screening. Small electrical signals are passed through the chair to test your reflexes while a brain scan is run to check for any impure thoughts or intentions.
Finally, drive mode is unlocked. Your maximum speed is set by your insurance provider -- a leisurely 10mph. An artificial intelligence watches you drive your car via. video link to monitor your driving patterns. Your cellphone is disabled.
Time to hit the open road.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who miss the reference the 1972 sci-fi movie Solaris has a very long tunnel driving scene (twenty minutes?) with no actors in shot and no dialogue. Despite that it's a very good movie based loosely on probably the least filmable but readable book I've ever read.
Apparently the director was sent to Japan to shoot some hi-tech stuff for the movie, ran out of time, so set the camera up in the back of a car on the way to the airport so he'd have s
Sounds useful (Score:2, Insightful)
If I were a cop, I'd be happy to use this tech to stop everyone from talking about or recording me assault people. Imagine how useful this technology would be to dictators. Well done Obama. Not only have you just created a data trove for organized crime to blackmail every US citizen, you are about to create the technology that helps dictators repress rebels.
Chauffeur's (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
emergency calls allowed? (Score:2)
can you still call 911 if your phone gets disabled and you're involved in some sort of accident (or you witness one)?
Meh. (Score:2)
I guess I'll keep driving and maintaining my existing cars until I die.
(And for the record: I'm OK with this; my cars suit me perfectly.)
Already possible (Score:2)
Step 2: Phone user forgets about phone and reverses out.
Step 3: The reversing car disables the phone that slides off the roof into the path of the wheels.
OK, so it's a surprisingly common and hilarious failure mode for laptops but I'm sure some phones have also died that way even though they usually live in pockets.
For pity's sake... (Score:4, Insightful)
A.
Technology.
Problem.
Make using a mobile phone punishable by confiscating the car immediately (as it is in the UK for driving uninsured) and a mandatory appearance in court, punishment being revocation of license.
This needs to be applied evenly (Score:2)
Most police patrol cars have multiple displays for the driver to easily read information (radar gun displaying speed of oncoming vehicles, license plate scanner scrolling information about the registration status of nearby cars, laptop, etc). If *my* car is going to be required to block any distractions while I am driving, then surely the public safety officers need to be similarly coddled and babysat.
This is a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
and most/all of that equipment is used when the patrol car is stationary and doesn't require operator input (typing, etc) they're passive display. Most sensible law enforcement deploy cops in pairs - one to drive and the other to monitor & operate the tech.
Re: (Score:2)
All patrol cars around here have two cops in them. Even while on foot, they tend to go around in pairs.
Why blame the tool for the fault of the user? (Score:2)
The root cause of this problem is that car drivers do not feel compelled to leave their phones alone while driving.
Unless you change this mindset, any artificial technological means of compulsion will only be despised, circumvented and rendered useless while incurring additional unnecesary costs as well as greatly inconveniencing non-drivers.
The key here is that drivers call/text while driving for convenience - they want to transmit a message NOW to save time rather than wait until the car stops rolling. To
Brilliant (Score:3)
Near the end TFA suggests detecting when the driver is using the phone but not the passenger. Just brilliant, now we'll have drivers leaning into the passenger seat texting.
Great Plan! (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong?
Hang up and drive (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot multitask nearly as well as you think you can. You might want to look out the windows once in a while, rather than looking at the phone. Unlike the bimbo that t-boned me.
If you self-important phone users would just put the goddamn phone down and actually drive the car, we wouldn't need initiatives like this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't be done. (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern GPS devices also pull in real-time traffic information to route it's users around traffic jams, accidents or other problems.
Re: (Score:2)
While the system in my car does this, it also downloads satellite imagry and road conditions in real time from the Internet as I am driving.
Re: (Score:3)
Fitting a map of a reasonably sized area on a mobile device has been possible for a very long time. For instance, the UK section of OpenStreetMap is reasonably complete and takes up only around 500MB, which has been easily within the capabilities of a low cost mobile device for 5+ years now, which is to say longer than most map streaming services have been around.
The only real reason for streaming is that it lets people download and install an app quickly, and provides for seamless map updates. Neither of
Re: (Score:3)
However, an internet connection is great for getting up to date maps...
Re: (Score:2)
But your is under the impression it is still moving, you are trapped and cant call for help
If that were the only problem you could just allow "emergency calls only", as many phones do when locked anyway.
Re:Cut off our nose to spite our face ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I have to side with NHTSA since I'd rather have my personal space invaded by a law than I would have it invaded by someone's ton and a half SUV because they were texting some cat picture instead of driving.
I don't have much faith in solutions like this because it's one of those problems which are social problems, not technological ones. If we disregard the technological feasibility of this, for the sake of argument, we're going to have people who are going to look for ways to circumvent this measure (and they will find it, have no worries about that). On top of that, any car and phone which isn't equipped with such a system still allows for people to call/text while driving.
A much better solution to this type of problem in my opinion is to raise awareness, make the whole thing punishable with a fine and for repeat offenders include a revocation of the drivers license, and actively enforce it. In the beginning you'll have people who will blatantly ignore these measures, but once they start getting hit with fines most of them will stop. And just like with parking fines, you'll have people who blatantly ignore the law, as with any other kind of restriction they feel that doesn't apply to them, which is where the revocation of the license comes into place.
On my morning commute which often involves 20km/h freeway "happiness", I've seen plenty of people use non-technological means to distract them from the task at hand. People reading the newspaper while driving, doing crossword puzzles, having breakfast, doing their make-up, etc etc etc. Hell, I've even seen someone miss a green light because they were too busy playing with their kids (an admirable feat, just not in traffic). You don't solve those kinds of things with a bit of electronics in the dashboard.
It's not the calling and texting that is the problem, that's just a symptom of the underlying problem. The problem is that people aren't paying attention as they're hurtling down the road at breakneck speeds. There's no chip you can place in the dashboard that makes people pay attention to what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
will that come before or after you will surrender a bottle of water at airport and take off your shoes, then step into a nudescanner ? ;)