And what causes you to sail over the guardrail in the first place?

Texting on the bloody phone while you’re driving?

There oughta be a version of Godwin’s law that can be invoked here.

Nanny-tech usually doesn’t work as intended.

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.

Great dot-gov Web Sites 2009

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.

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.

The good is the enemy of the perfect.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.