Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Transportation

Will Your Car Tell You To Put Down the Phone? 349

Posted by timothy
from the but-you-can't-talk-through-a-hamburger dept.
crimeandpunishment writes with this story from the AP: "We know it's dangerous to text while driving, or talk on a cell phone without using a hands-free device. What if our car knew it as well, and warned us about it? Our cars buzz and beep at us when our seatbelts aren't buckled ... now there are new applications in the works that could lead to a warning if we're driving with a cell phone in our hand."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Your Car Tell You To Put Down the Phone?

Comments Filter:
  • Up next... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:31AM (#31653928)

    Will Timothy post another article asking a vague, sensationalist question in the title? The answer may surprise you.

      • by severoon (536737)

        I'm still a big proponent of the USD—the "universal safety device," also sometimes called the "reverse airbag." It guarantees that the driver will be careful and attentive to the task at hand at all times while driving. It never has to be updated, and it's a very simple device so there's not much to go wrong with it.

        It's a railroad spike sticking straight out of the steering wheel.

        • by syousef (465911) on Monday March 29, 2010 @05:53AM (#31654766) Journal

          I'm still a big proponent of the USD—the "universal safety device,"

          It's a railroad spike sticking straight out of the steering wheel.

          The way some people drive, they'd probably use it to hold their doughnuts and completely ignore the danger.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Sir_Lewk (967686)

            Thank God for natural selection. ;)

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by mcgrew (92797) *

              It wouldn't work in this case. You can't drive until you're sixteen, and by then the idiots that would even get in a car like that would already have three kids.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by AndersOSU (873247)

                because only rednecks are bad drivers?

                I'm just as likely to see a guy with a suit in a beemer fooling with his blackberry on I95 as I am to see a teeny-boper txting her bff.

        • by jimicus (737525)

          If you consider how cars were built prior to the introduction of airbags, that's not terribly far from what was actually there. The steering column is a big, thick chunk of metal and it WILL kill you if your head hits it at high speed.

          Anyone with half a brain knew full well it was there, but it still didn't help to reduce deaths.

          • by tugboat0902 (1339165) on Monday March 29, 2010 @08:05AM (#31655390)
            Actually, steering wheels rarely kill you by hitting your head. What normally happens is that your chest strikes the wheel and experiences a deceleration injury. The way the heart is attached in the chest causes it to fold forward on the attachment where the subclavian artery meets the aorta. This causes a partial or complete tear of the aorta (aortic dissection/transection) If a partial tear is detected in the ER before it ruptures, the patient can occasionally be saved with emergency surgery. My general surgery chairman suggested that all auto manufacturers should mark steering wheels with a raised 'AORTAGRAM' mirror image on them. That way when the chest struck the wheel with sufficient force, it would remind the surgery residents to get an aortagram to rule out dissection by printing it right on the chest.
    • Re:Up next... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dahamma (304068) on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:51AM (#31654026)

      Pick your battles, man!

      I find a lot of Timothy's posts excruciatingly painful, too. But this one was unbiased, linked to a fairly interesting article, and by any stretch had a title that is completely typical of any print or online editorial "catch your eye" titles or leads. If anything commenters should be praising it as the kind of thing we want him to post on slashdot...

  • I thought it was still up in the air. Isn't the distraction being on a call?
    • by RobVB (1566105) on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:48AM (#31654004)

      Mythbusters did an episode on this. Yes, being on a call is a large part of the distraction. However, I believe people holding a phone are much less likely to, for example, use their directionals while taking a turn.

      • by JWSmythe (446288)

        Ya, it's a terrible distraction, when they're trying to smoke a cigarette, hold a drink, fix their makeup, beat the kids in the back seat, AND use the phone.

        Hmmm, you'd think there would already be laws about driving while distracted, and it wouldn't matter. Oh.. wait.. there already were.

        They're less likely to signal when they're eating their triple cheezeburger and sucking on their super-bladder-buster drinks. I don't see them making new laws against that. Oh

        • by edittard (805475)

          Ya, it's a terrible distraction, when they're trying to smoke a cigarette, hold a drink, fix their makeup, beat the kids in the back seat, AND use the phone.

          That's ridiculous. Nobody would ever try to do more than three of those at the same time.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by skine (1524819)

        Anyone who thinks that anything Mythbusters does is at all scientific is an idiot. Their basic model is that if they can't get it to work in three tries, then they blow it up to keep their ratings.

        I'm in no way saying that talking on a cell phone while driving isn't unsafe. What I'm saying is that any program that spends more than five minutes on The Airplane Problem is more worried about ratings than science.

        • Anyone who thinks that anything Mythbusters does is at all scientific is an idiot. Their basic model is that if they can't get it to work in three tries, then they blow it up to keep their ratings.

          It's not like Mythbuster is the only evidence. There's been proper studies - by scientists, with white coats and all that.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by profplump (309017)

            Yes. Studies that said being distracted by phone call is a lot like being distracted by any of 100 other things that commonly distract drivers.

            But hey, maybe if we pretend that distracted driving is related only to phones we can solve the problem in one swoop. That seems totally plausible.

            • by Zumbs (1241138) on Monday March 29, 2010 @05:10AM (#31654600) Homepage

              As far as I remember, the studies showed significant difference between talking on a mobile phone (hand-held or not) and talking to another passenger. Why? Because not only are the drivers attention focused elsewhere, the driver will also have to focus on making out the somewhat blurred words coming out through a mobile phone. This neglects the fact that the passenger will also be able to see dangerous situations brewing, and be able to warn the driver, or at least shut up.

              You are right in asserting that there are other distractions that are (just as) dangerous, such as driving while intoxicated, having sex, applying makeup etc, but is that a reason that we should ignore the issue? Or is a law a reasonable way to educate drivers that these things actually are dangerous and that they should not be done at pain of a hefty fine?

              • by osgeek (239988)

                Don't you hate it when drivers feel absolutely compelled to look at their passengers while talking to them?

                I'll forego the politeness of being looked at while being spoken to in order to arrive alive.

                It's almost as bad when you're at a light behind a man who has a woman in the car. The light turned green ten seconds ago, but he's still watching her like she's dessert. You hate to honk and be a cockblocker, but jeez dude... go!

          • by skine (1524819)

            One such study was published.

            In a high school statistics class, the teacher (also an adjunct professor at a local university) used a study on cell phones and driving habits in our classroom.

            Unfortunately, I cannot find the data now, but while the data was not statistically significant, it was still used to promote much of the regulation in force today.

            -----

            But also, the Mythbusters Cell Phone episode is a bit over the top. Again, I in no way claim that talking on a cell phone while driving is safe. However,

        • by gmhowell (26755)

          I think we could interest a great many more people in scientific endeavours if we instituted a "three tries then blow it up" sort of system.

    • by Frostalicious (657235) on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:54AM (#31654042) Journal

      I thought it was still up in the air. Isn't the distraction being on a call?

      It's pretty clear to me that the danger comes from divided attention and the level of concentration required to interact in a remote conversation with terrible signal to noise.

      If the danger arose from holding the phone to your ear then we should also outlaw scratching your ear and adjusting your glasses. The current law is safety theater.

      •     It's not even the remoteness of the conversation. A conversation, or worse a heated argument, with passengers in the car can be just as dangerous.

            They've made laws regarding bus drivers, which is why you get the white line you can't cross. They can't be distracted while driving. Well, they *shouldn't* be distracted. It's harder to institute for cars though. It's not like you can stop the car, radio for a cop, and say "my wife was bothering me while I was driving."

            Just picture the average family on a road trip. Kids screaming in the back seat, wife bitching that you're driving too fast, too slow, going taking the wrong route, etc, etc, etc. "Daddy, are we there yet?" "I have to pee" "I'm hungry" "Billy's poking me" "Can't you drive faster?" "I told you, if we took the other way, we'd already be there." "Do you know where you're going?" "We should stop for directions" "Can't you put something else on the radio?" "It's hot." "It's cold." "My ass hurts from this seat." "Can't you get us there any sooner?" "Why do you always ignore me?" "Go faster" "Do you have to drive so fast?" "Do you have to follow him so close?" "I'm bored." "Now I know why mother told me not to marry you."

            SHUT UP AND LET ME DRIVE! I KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING! WE'LL GET THERE WHEN I SAY! IF YOU HAVE TO PEE, PISS IN A BOTTLE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY DRIVING GET OUT AND WALK! AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR FAT COW OF A MOTHER SAYS, YOUR DAD SAYS SHE'S A WHORE!

            What's worse, that or a quick phone call, "Honey, I'll be home in 1/2 hour. Pick up milk? ok. See you soon."

            I know, people are obnoxious about their phone calls, but at least those are shorter than the constant distraction of the passengers that you can't get rid of. Well, you can get rid of them, but there are laws about leaving dead bodies by the side of the highway. Something about littering and a $100 fine, if I remember the signs right.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by somersault (912633)

          "Can't you drive faster?" "I told you, if we took the other way, we'd already be there." "Do you know where you're going?" "We should stop for directions" "Can't you put something else on the radio?" "Can't you get us there any sooner?" "Why do you always ignore me?" "Go faster" "Do you have to drive so fast?" "Do you have to follow him so close?" "I'm bored."

          Sat navs these days.. they're never happy.

        • by slim (1652)

          It's not even the remoteness of the conversation. A conversation, or worse a heated argument, with passengers in the car can be just as dangerous.

          I'm sure I've seen mention of studies that show that remote conversations are more dangers (yes, yes: [citation needed]).

          A plausible explanation is that when you're having a conversation with someone in the passenger seat, they know when, for example, you're negotiation a busy junction, and will pause to let you concentrate on the road, tolerate pauses in your own speech without butting in, etc.

      • by osgeek (239988)

        I live in the suburbs where almost every soccer mom has her phone glued to her ear from the moment she gets into her car until she arrives at her destination. I think it's a sickness.

        I don't see anyone adjusting their glasses quite so assiduously.

        The move I love is when they're too busy to take their phones off their left ears so they just turn left without really looking to see what may be in the intersection. It's a classic. At those moments, I wish they had something hands free available.

        Even more nec

    • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday March 29, 2010 @03:31AM (#31654216) Homepage Journal

      It's not up in the air at all. Back in the day when cell phones were large, bulky things that took up the center seat on a standard bench seat pickup truck, my boss got me one. Most of the time, it would ring, I would tell whoever that I'm driving, and I'll call them back. One day, the boss called me to rag on me. He got moderately abusive, and my mind was on the phone call, not on my driving. Holding the phone was no great distraction - the content of the discussion was. Instead of making my turn, I drove across the state line, and only realized it after I had driven about 6 or 7 miles into the neighboring state.

      Forever after, I turned that damned phone OFF while I was driving. I'm a pretty damned good driver, with literally millions of miles behind me. But, if I can screw up so badly, you bet your ass that other people can!!

      • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

        my boss got me one

        the boss called me to rag on me. He got moderately abusive

        Instead of making my turn, I drove across the state line

        ...Thus sticking him with long-distance charges.

        You sir, are a genius!

  • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:40AM (#31653966)

    What a waste of effort.

    As a mechanic, I personally removed, disconnected or otherwise rendered useless dozens of "spoken word" feedback systems on cars. They have been around for many years, doing anything from reminding you that your seatbelt is unfastened, that you left your headlights on or to tell you your door is ajar (No it isn't! It's a door!).

    I did so at the REQUEST OF THE VEHICLE OWNER.

    Once the novelty wears off, spoken word feedback systems are annoying as a kid in the back seat repeatedly asking "Are we there yet?"

    Law, or otherwise, such a system would be disabled as soon as the customers patience wore out, and there will never be a shortage of mechanics willing to do it for you if the price is right.

    • by grrrl (110084)

      Oooh it can be done? One reason I'm loathe to even consider buying a new car is the horrid torrent of beeps and sweeps and bleeps that seem to come at you from all angles. I drove my sister's car and it beeped at me to put the seatbelt on on the passenger side, because I had put my bag (with laptop) on the passenger seat!! And a lot of new cars beep when you open the door with the keys in - SO WHAT? I do this constantly (when security is not an issue, eg if you're sitting in the car waiting for someone, it'

      • Yep!

        You can actually do some of this yourself.

        Simply get the warning going, then follow your ears. Often, the noise is generated by a device that looks just like a flasher relay. Pull that sucker out, then make sure everything ELSE still works. If not, put it back and find a mechanic.

        I once had a car come through my shop that when taken on a test drive, would make sounds just like the human-headed fly caught in the spider's web at the end of the movie "The Fly". The owner had taken a drill to the tiny littl

    • I disabled the fucking "ding ding ding" that reminded me my seatbelt wasn't fastened. I always wear my seatbelt but the fucking thing would come on the second I start the engine. I always start the engine first THEN put on my seatbelt THEN put the fucker into gear. Thank god it's a '98, the fix turned out to be simply undoing the connector between the floor and the seat. I suspect it's more of a pain in the ass to do on newer cars.
    • ....and what if your phone does not *have* bluetooth?

      Most people who use their phone in the car are well aware they shouldn't, and still do it, this will not stop them

    • by ljw1004 (764174)

      "Risk Homeostasis"

      That's the observation that we as humans tend to adjust our behavior to have the same overall level of risk. So: cars are made safer through seatbelts and airbags, and we've taken to riskier faster driving, and the risks balanced out. If cars were made more dangerous through spears mounted in steering columns pointed at our chests, then we'd drive more slowly to balance the risks.

      I'm entirely in favor of seat-belts -- they're the things that encourage fast exhilarating driving!

      You, sir, ar

  • by Kenja (541830) on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:40AM (#31653968)
    How about the headlights flash when the driver is using their cell phone so everyone else knows to dive out of the way?
  • by RobVB (1566105) on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:42AM (#31653978)

    The article only seems to mention smartphone apps, which doesn't seem optimal to me.

    What about pressure monitors in the steering wheel that sound an alarm when they don't feel anything for more than, say, 30 seconds? Sure it might annoy those who prefer driving with one hand, but I suspect driving with two hands might be inherently safer anyway. Pressure monitors would also prevent you from fiddling with the radio for too long, and would work for people without smartphones - or people you lend your car to.

    • "but I suspect driving with two hands might be inherently safer anyway."

      You might suspect so. You might also find some citations. I'm one who often drives with one hand. I just can't sit in one position, with both hands in almost the same position all day long. Of course, I'm sure that you only sit behind the wheel for 15 to 30 minutes at a time, and have little idea what a twelve hour drive is like, when the vehicle DEMANDS that both hand be positioned just so. ;^)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xest (935314)

      "Sure it might annoy those who prefer driving with one hand, but I suspect driving with two hands might be inherently safer anyway."

      Maybe if you drive automatic I guess, but whilst it used to be true with all vehicles, I don't think that's really the case anymore if you drive manual. I find a lot of circumstances where being able to change gear quickly is much more important than two hands on the wheel. Why do I think that's the case now and didn't before? Power steering. Sure without it it is kinda importa

    • by Rockoon (1252108)

      Sure it might annoy those who prefer driving with one hand, but I suspect driving with two hands might be inherently safer anyway.

      Using twice as many muscles is safer? Really?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by demonlapin (527802)
      Let me guess: you've never driven 1000 miles in a day, have you?
  • by jafo (11982) * on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:44AM (#31653992) Homepage
    I don't know what the current numbers are, but as of a couple of years ago the story was that the leading cause of distracted driver accidents was messing with the climate control and radio. So, yeah, let's go for saving lives and make it so you can't change the radio station, volume, or adjust the temperature. There will probably have to be congressional hearings on whether defogging of the windows is worth the risk involved in enabling it. I guess for safety's sake we should just make defogging be on all the time, just in case.

    I personally think that the real problem is people not giving the driving the attention it requires. Whether it's your child (my wife was once rear-ended by a woman in a SUV because she was watching her child in the back seat -- did I mention we drive an impossible-to-miss yellow car), having a beverage, or adjusting the climate control... You need to pay attention to the weapon you are steering.

    Sean
    • by ljw1004 (764174)

      No, that's not the number one risk, and I don't think it's ever been.

      Adjusting the radio and the climate control is correlated with a DECREASED risk of accidents. The hypothesis for this experimental correlation is that typically the kind of driver who fixes his/her driving environment is the kind of driver who's more attentive to road risks as well. I don't have the cite to hand, but this data and hypothesis were from a paper in the past year somewhere in the east coast. I have a vague memory that it was a

  • by mvdwege (243851) <mvdwege@mail.com> on Monday March 29, 2010 @02:52AM (#31654032) Homepage Journal

    It's a social problem. No amount of gadgets is going to stop idiots from wanting to yammer away instead of paying attention; witness the mechanic in this discussion mentioning how many of those warning systems he disconnected.

    The solution is brutally simple: three strikes, and you're out. Three tickets for driving while on the phone? Lose your license. Need your car for work? You should have thought of that and moved to the side of the road before dividing your attention between traffic and your important conversation.

    Otherwise it is time for some good old vigilantism and just shoot them in the head. It's not as if they have any brains to splatter the inside of the car, so that keeps its resale value.

    Mart

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mr. Freeman (933986)
      Three strikes is a poor solution. Look, all of these activities are going to happen regardless of how many restrictions we put on them. Make it illegal to talk on a phone? People use handsfree sets and speakerphone that cops can't see. Make it illegal to text? People hold the phone in their lap. The list goes on.

      These distractions aren't the issue. Even without cell phones people still manage to cause accidents and kill people. The solution isn't to wait until these idiots kill someone and then take
      • ABS generally works

        Yeah, it does, and in the tests I saw back in the 90s, even then it was beaten only by experienced racers. Your interlocutor might have said something dumb, but it would be perfectly reasonable to say that the whole point of ABS is that the computer can figure out the braking threshold faster and better than nearly all drivers.

      • Licenses are required but people still drive without them.

        People just don't give a fuck.

      • The solution to all this is to REQUIRE everyone who wants a license to take an extremely in-depth class related to driving.

        Your idea is ridiculous because it amounts to legal protectionism for whoever is teaching the class. The actual solution is to require everyone who wants a license to take a much more difficult test, both written and practical. The driver goes to the testing facility and has to do things like recover their vehicle from a skid. Extra bonus points for introducing more finely classed licenses which don't permit you to drive large vehicles or use certain dangerous roads unless you have the higher class of license. Your goal would produce far more overhead and subject drivers to additional obligation unnecessarily. Who cares how I learned to drive, if I can do it properly?

        Just the other day I was talking with someone who said that he was angry his car didn't have anti-lock brakes because it was snowing. I asked him why on earth he wanted anti-lock brakes in the snow. I told him that it's much better to simply use "threshold braking" (where you brake as hard as possible without locking the brakes).

        Anti-lock brakes allow you to steer in the snow. Threshold braking will not. Also, the point between maximum braking and locking up the wheels is invisibly thin on snow, which is one reason you pump the brakes; you can then feel where the break point is. Finally, stopping on snow requires locking up the wheels to build up snow in front of them, meaning your threshold braking idea is utterly incorrect. Pumping the brakes just past the point of lockup builds up snow in front of them and permits braking and allows rough steering. Fancy, modern ABS can detect snow/gravel conditions and will actually use more braking force to achieve this sort of stuttering condition.

        You just failed the more strident written exam. Say goodbye to your license.

        I informed him that he was a fucking idiot and shouldn't be driving if he didn't know how to handle emergency situations.

        If you don't outdrive the car, ABS makes it legitimately safer. He's not the idiot.

        Everyone thinks it's their god-given right to throw a 2 ton block of steel and aluminum all over the place at speeds often in excess of 50 miles an hour with no more training than "here's the gas, there's the brake".

        It is difficult to exist in the USA without a car. I lived in San Francisco and it took me 15 minutes to drive to work including parking and it took over an hour on public transit, which required that I take a bus, light rail, and another bus. This is a situation deliberately created by the car companies with the blessing of our government — didn't you see Who Framed Roger Rabbit [wikipedia.org]? We had a working public transportation system and it was systematically dismantled. Is driving really a privilege when it is also a necessity?

        Even in situations without ANY distractions (no cell phone, no radio) the amount of damage and death caused is still way higher than it should be.

        How about we eliminate the gigantic cars which can go over 100? There's no. need. whatsoever. for a street car to be able to exceed 100 mph. Also, if we had a graduated licensing system, you'd see a lot less people in trucks, vans, and SUVs. People who don't need 'em would get something else.

  • How about this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kokuyo (549451) on Monday March 29, 2010 @03:10AM (#31654124) Journal

    The people that ignore those laws and accept the danger inherent in being distracted from driving don't do so because they don't know better. No, I'm not shitting you!

    You can forget to put a seatbelt on, although it is quite hard, and you can easily forget to turn the headlights off. But you cannot forget that you are texting while driving. So unless this system pulls the car over at the next save opportunity and doesn't let you start the engine until you've put the fricking phone away, this won't do squat.

    Everyone else who commented that there are other, and worse, distractions, are correct. But people talking on the phone is something that is so easily fixed with just a few bucks, that I find it really annoying that people still keep holding onto their phones.

    The interesting part around here (Switzerland)? Most of those people don't drive cheap, old Skodas or Renaults, no siree-bob. They're usually wearing business suits and driving new Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Lexus. Now if a single mother of three without a job is on her way to an interview and needs to contact her potential employer due to a detour, that I could understand. Fifty bucks, to her, are probably a lot of cash.

    But this guy with the 1000$ suit and the 130'000$ car just does not get to use that excuse.

    • by Kokuyo (549451)

      Heck, the 130'000$ car probably has the sucker built in already.

    • Which Switzerland do you live in? Also living in Switzerland, I can tell you that there are plenty of cheaper models on the roads. Go look in the parking lot at the Migros (the largest supermarket chain).

      What is different is that your car registration must be renewed every two years, and any significant, visible rust is forbidden. Hence, you don't find any rust-buckets or junkers on the roads.

      • by Kokuyo (549451)

        You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying people don't drive those cars (heck, I drive a 5000 CHF 10 year old Chrysler Voyager), but that those whom I most frequently see with a hand glued to the phone glued to the ear are the ones driving the expensive cars.

    • by jandersen (462034)

      So unless this system pulls the car over at the next save opportunity and doesn't let you start the engine until you've put the fricking phone away, this won't do squat

      You are right of course; but how about this, then: Instead of making noises, why not require mobile operators to not accept calls other than to the emergency services on the motorway. They can do that, since they can already tell you position fairly accurately from the signal strengths on the local receivers. Simple and easy - nobody can natter on like idiots on the motorway, and you could extend the system to other areas as well.

      • by jareds (100340)

        You are right of course; but how about this, then: Instead of making noises, why not require mobile operators to not accept calls other than to the emergency services on the motorway. They can do that, since they can already tell you position fairly accurately from the signal strengths on the local receivers.

        First off, you have passengers, including passengers of buses and so forth. I want policies that encourage multiple people to a vehicle.

        Second, there is just no way that we have maps that are accurate enough. I gather that motorway is a British term corresponding to the American term freeway, a road that has no stops and is limited to motor vehicle traffic, so you don't have the problem of sidewalks (aka pavement, I believe). Even so, there are apartment buildings in my city that I can clearly see on Goo

  • by advocate_one (662832) on Monday March 29, 2010 @03:14AM (#31654148)
    by not showing characters texting or making phone calls while driving... People see their favourite actor doing it so they think there's nothing wrong with it...
  • "...there are new applications in the works that could lead to a warning if we're driving with a cell phone in our hand"

    Uh, I think the driver already knew they were driving with a cell phone in their hand; a warning seems superfluous.

  • Slightly off topic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Monday March 29, 2010 @04:04AM (#31654338)
    Some years ago my company had a really obnoxious CEO. He had the interpersonal skills of a great white shark, so his preferred technique for shouting at people was to do it from his mobile phone while driving because then he didn't actually have to interact with them.

    After one major display of crap management (leaving the annual budget till the night before he had to present it to the group CEO and then blaming the CFO when the numbers didn't add up) the CFO announced that he now intended to wait till there was a really heavy storm on the M42 and the CEO was driving through it, then call him and tell him exactly what he thought of him. This would surely result in his getting flattened by a truck.

    Unfortunately we all got other jobs and left before the opportunity arose, but I still think it would be a legal way to wipe out very aggressive people.

  • you could probably fit a hands free phone into the car for the same price?

  • Don't look for a solution in the cars, look for the solution in the phone.

    Most if not all phones have some sort of GPS. Simply deactivate the screen keypad, and ringer and send all calls to voice mail if the phone is traveling faster than walking speed.

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!

Working...