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)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Driver not the only one in the car (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: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:Driver not the only one in the car (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: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, 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: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).
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:1, 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?
That's called a "smartphone"...
Re:First (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: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.
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.
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:First (Score:5, Insightful)
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:First (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Driver not the only one in the car (Score:4, 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:First (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 each and every time she gets into a car. No exceptions. The benefits of not wearing a seat belt strike me as being minimal. And a failure to wear a seat belt in a crash dramatically increases the risk of serious injury or death. When I do the analysis, skipping the seat belt is not an acceptable risk.
Smartphones provide a more difficult case though, largely because of the wide range of behaviors that they enable. Texting while driving? High risk. Using a navigation app? Modest risk. Listening to music? Low risk, unless you need to interact with the music app in some way, in which case the risk increases-- maybe a little, maybe a lot, depending on the quality of the user interface and what you're trying to do.
And that's just from the driver's perspective. A passenger can do almost anything with a smartphone, short of hitting the driver in the head with it, and not increase the risk of a dangerous crash. All in all, it makes it very difficult to make blanket statements about the risk from smartphones in an automobile. And therefore very difficult to regulate in a reasonable way.
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.