When a cellphone is used in a moving car, its signal must be handed off from one cell tower to the next along the route. This process tells the service provider that the phone is in motion. Cellphone towers could be engineered to not transmit while a phone is traveling.
Look, I don’t want people using cell phones while driving, but this isn’t the way – big brother. Put laws in place like we do for drunk driving and deal with the issue that way.
Considering how foolproof drunk driving laws are, why not let technology help out? I was all for the idea of a DIY breathalyzer in cars to prevent drunk driving; whatever happened to that?
Awhile back, twentyfive people in California died because a train engineer was texting. Recently, transit video caught a bus driver doing the same thing… the only reason he was discovered was because he seriously rear-ended the person in front of him.
You don’t think that these people knew that if the worst case scenario happened, they … Read Morecould die, be fired, be sued, and go to jail? Do you really think it mattered to them? They assumed they could get away with it.
The simple fact is, the only way we can prevent hundreds of people from dying a year — and killing others — due to ILLEGAL mobile device usage is to remove functionality while mobile UNLESS a person is using that device with, say, a hands-free set.
I don’t like the way the person writing the editorial framed their argument, as it was too unspecific and draconian, but is it too much to insist that people use such devices in a legal manner?
The only problem I see is how you differentiate passengers — say, people on a train — from drivers/conductors. But really… given how rude people can be who use their phones on trains in the first place, I could accept no — or limited — access while on public transportation.
Beats this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1elMVtURzCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHdZxO4_tQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXUSx_nji7U
This is such a terrible idea. I mean, why not just ban driving in cars? That way there’d be no more highway fatalities!
But it’ll never happen. Cops will oppose it, because cell phones are an important part of doing their own job these days.
And let’s get rid of drive-thru fast food restaurants, while we’re at it. And surely there is a way to disable the radio from being changed while the car is in motion.
And can we please put sound-proof glass between the front and back seats so drivers never have to deal with fighting and screaming kids?
Thank you. We should all now be safe.
MOTION is not equal to DRIVING.
I don’t talk and drive, but I sometimes use my phone while in motion. Talking on a phone on a city bus may be annoying, but certainly doesn’t distract the driver. It’s also completely reasonable to use the phone when your carpool driver is at the wheel, and the phone user is not. If I’m walking down the street long enough, I’ll cross a cell boundary. While distracted walking has its perils, it’s far less dangerous than operating tons of machinery. Should that be prohibited?
Intentionally destroying the reliability of the system has can have unintended consequences. Say you’re talking, and your signal is bouncing off of a surface to get to the tower. Spin your chair around, and you’ve just switched strongest signal path, and you get switched to a different cell. Should your phone call be dropped?
As a clarification, the best way to remove cellphone functionality when traveling is through the software of the phone itself. Texting, for example, can either be completely disabled, or perhaps only accessable via some kind of speech recognition service that would be called into using a hands-free phone.
One thing that *COULD* be done to make it safer and more optional would be to give drivers — or even instututional insurance for trains or buses — discounts if they had such a non hands-free mobile usage block on their phones… whereas any accidents caused by illegal mobile device usage would void the insurance, or greatly reduce the amount that the insurer would have to pay.
This would also give parents, transportation business owners, etc. strong incentives to see to it that these devices don’t imperil others.
There are a lot of carrot & stick methods to move people towards safer, better technology for mobile devices. What I hear from you currently just reflects the kind of bellicose thought that makes mandatory trigger locks or biometrics legislation in guns a political non-starter.
How is the cell tower supposed to know I’m in my car, and not, say, happily riding the city bus as a passenger, or walking, as some of us still do quite often? Stupid, impractical idea even before we get to the Big Brother problems.
“Cops will oppose it, because cell phones are an important part of doing their own job these days.”
If it is done, it would almost certainly be handled on the software side of things. Obviously, police and emergency vehicles wouldn’t have the same software requirements.
Really, the problems we are seeing are *design* issues. As someone who has dealt extensively with software, it’s simply silly to suggest that there aren’t reasonable steps that can be taken on the software side to reduce the risks inherent in these devices when used while driving.
“How is the cell tower supposed to know I’m in my car, and not, say, happily riding the city bus as a passenger, or walking…”
The issue isn’t being mobile. The issue is the speed you are going at. Mobile devices are quite capable of determining that, and requiring hands-free mobile devices while going over a certain speed.
The thing is, there is no reason that the great majority of mobile device functionality can’t be hands-free, including texting. The trade-off would be requiring passengers to use their devices hands-free. The advantage for them is that they’d know their driver isn’t texting or distracted by the phone.
Again…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1elMVtURzCE
“There are a lot of carrot & stick methods to move people towards safer, better technology for mobile devices.”
I’m not opposed to a law or harsher sentences for people who are texting of talking and have an accident.
But stopping a person in a moving vehicle from using their phone, when they could be a passenger or on a bus, is really, really stupid.
“it’s simply silly to suggest that there aren’t reasonable steps that can be taken on the software side to reduce the risks inherent in these devices when used while driving”
So any phone that switches to a different signal tower gets shut off? Still doesn’t account for passengers, bus riders, metro riders, etc. Stupid idea.
Put laws in place like we do for drunk driving and deal with the issue that way.
Such laws are in place, at least where I live. A lot of people get ticketed; many more continue to disregard the law, essentially for the same reason that alcoholics continue to get behind the wheel. Because they can, and because they think they’re safer and smarter than all those stupid people who get into accidents.
The problem is not one that can be solved, only mitigated. Enforcement of the current law mitigates the danger somewhat; the idea outlined in the editorial would mitigate it more. So the question here is, is it worth it? I say absolutely yes. Oliver, you reference Orwell to criticize this approach, but I think he’s misapplied. What freedom is being taken away by this kind of surveillance? It’s not an invasion of privacy. It’s just making it more difficult for well-meaning but misguided people to take an unnecessary risk.
And unnecessary really is the key word. Nobody needs to have constant, uninterrupted access to a telephone. A lot of people think they do, but they’re just wrong. We all got along fine before cell phones were invented. Junkies who need their communication fix that badly shouldn’t be on the road anyway.
Perhaps we should rethink our attitudes regarding the technology around us.
It’s okay to use software to hobble cellphones to boost corporate profits… or hobble music and video players to prevent illegal music downloads…
… but when someone suggests designing devices such as cellphones, guns, or cars so that they’re less likely to result in illegal acts that cause indiscriminate deaths, *THEN* we can “screw you” and dig in our heels?!
Clearly, our priorities are out of whack.
Enforce the existing laws. It’s really that simple. Given the limited resources that law enforcement has, you can only do so much. Jamming cellphones that are moving is not a good use of resources. And again, it punishes people who are lawfully using the things on public transportation or as a passenger.
The good is the enemy of the perfect.
An even more obvious point: I’m driving. My wife is in the passenger seat. I understand why I shouldn’t be using the phone, but the proposed solution also makes it impossible for my wife to make a call.
“So any phone that switches to a different signal tower gets shut off? Still doesn’t account for passengers, bus riders, metro riders, etc.”
Actually, no, that isn’t what I said.
It could be implemented in software to be far more flexible. For example, it could detect that you are moving over x speed and give you a notice, telling you to transition to a hands-free mode of some sort, perhaps with, say, a 30-sec countdown or a recurrent nag message. Hands free could be as simple as using voice activated services via bluetooth headphones or the like, which are sometimes still illegal for drivers, but are statistically much less dangerous than texting or using cellphones directly. And yes, texting can be done via voice, with the right software.
“Enforce the existing laws. It’s really that simple.”
Clearly, enforcing the existing laws has stopped tens of thousands of deaths every year from drunk driving and gun-related deaths that fall under the category of negligence, manslaughter, child endangerment, etc. Unfortunately, it’s not just those who are breaking basic safety laws who are dying. It’s all sorts of innocent people who happen to be around them too.
“Given the limited resources that law enforcement has, you can only do so much. Jamming cellphones that are moving is not a good use of resources.”
As I’ve said repeatedly, it would all be done in software within the device itself. It would not be “jamming”, as in interfering in any way with the signal. It would be software detecting fast movement and either switching the user over into hands-free mode, or giving them time to do such a switch themselves. No human interaction would be required for this to occur. All you’d need to do is require US phone manufacturers to add such features on their phones.
The phones wouldn’t call the cops, so there would be no added burden to police. In fact, it would reduce the burden on law enforcement, as they would make fewer stops for drivers using cellphones improperly in their cars… as well as fewer accidents they and other emergency responders would have to take care of.
Like I said, law enforcement isn’t about perfection. It can’t be. We know lots of people are going to die every year in automobile accidents regardless of our efforts. The question is, is cellphone jamming a reasonable preventative measure? (I say no it isn’t.) And would it effectively curb a significant number of accidents? (My say is no.)
Because honestly, a person who crashes a car while on a cellphone is probably a bad driver to start with. They’d probably get distracted by a person talking to them in the car just as easily, or by something shiny by the side of the road.
About Government, but off topic ::
Great dot-gov Web Sites 2009
Distracted drivers are always a problem, and part of the problem is an overemphasis on very few causes: alcohol and texting. The worst problem is being tired, followed by a host of others: alcohol, texting, doing things that drivers shouldn’t such as finding a new cd, attitudes (anger, daydreaming, whatever,) going too fast for the road conditions (the speed limit is supposed to be a maximum, not a minimum,) and other people (in other cars, in the same car, on the sidewalk, what have you.)
The way to solve this problem is to treat all distractions in the same way. Falling asleep driving home following a double shift isn’t any better than a few too many drinks, but the law goes after the drinker much more. Both are equally dangerous, if you ask me. And there’s also prescription medications and sick people, the elderly, the young and stupid, the middle aged and arrogant, and the good and bad motorcyclists and bicyclists. People just need to calm the hell down, take some responsibility for themselves, and I think a good way to do this all is to outlaw insurance companies from paying for the first $1000 of any accident. That way those dumbasses who think they’re covered won’t blissfully go along and think their covered. We really need a change in attitudes toward driving overall, not just another thing to tsk-tsk at while ignoring the bigger picture: we just aren’t very good drivers.
Also, this change would only result in more “lost” calls, which would result in more distraction, more punching of more buttons, and probably more accidents and deaths. Bad idea.
Also: this would disable passengers cellphones. And people on busses and trains. People need to think this stuff through.
Nanny-tech usually doesn’t work as intended.
Sorry kidnapped little girl, you couldn’t get a message out to come save you because some nanny-stater couldn’t be bothered to think through their retarded decisions. good luck with the sexual abuse and murder!
soullite : Not to mention when your car sails through a guard rail, down an embankment, and you’re injured , holding on to your disabled cell phone
Sorry kidnapped little girl, you couldn’t get a message out to come save you because some nanny-stater couldn’t be bothered to think through their retarded decisions. good luck with the sexual abuse and murder!
There oughta be a version of Godwin’s law that can be invoked here.
Sigh, all of the inane muttering about texting while driving, talking on the phone while driving, etc. is slowly pushing me toward a breaking point. Everywhere I go I hear feckless morons screeching about people using cell phones, and with a great deal of consistency I hear how cell phones should have some kind of technology that monitors their speed. The people suggesting this are usually completely ignorant of the technical implications of such features. Not only do you have to deal with the issue that, in any given car, you can have up to 5 people, so if I’m trying to call ahead to Chipotle to get my order in or talk to someone about directions, etc. and I’m not driving, it doesnt make sense to brick my phone or have it beep and harass me, as I am not the driver. The mentioning of bus (and metro and boat) passengers is also a good point, imagine if I couldn’t text on the bus, I’d go insane with boredom. Beyond this, the fact is that having software on the phone monitor the speed of the phone at all times would burn out the battery very quickly. What good is it to cripple the long term usability of a device solely because a bunch of whiney people can’t handle reality? How about we put a pin in this and work on a national public transportation grid, wouldn’t that have a much more significant impact? How about people move to cities and start taking the bus or bike to work? Change your behavior and get off other people’s asses, you aren’t the most important person in the world, and I’m sorry to tell you, you are going to die, whether its in a horrible car crash or a heart attack, everyone has a time and place.
So you’d favor taking away everyone’s cell phones?
‘Not to mention when your car sails through a guard rail, down an embankment, and you’re injured , holding on to your disabled cell phone’
And what causes you to sail over the guardrail in the first place?
Texting on the bloody phone while you’re driving?
Yeah, Jr , and there were no car accidents before cell phones existed. You probably think that there was never a time when people drove a car without using a cell phone, but there was.