Software Holds Cell Phone Calls While Driving 452
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian company Aegis Mobility has developed software that detects if a cell phone is moving at 'car' speeds. If so, the software, DriveAssistT, will alert the cellular network, telling it to hold calls and text messages until the drive is over. Calls are not blocked entirely; callers will be notified that the person appears to be driving, but they can still leave an emergency voice mail, which will be sent through immediately."
This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm ... What is my gf is on the phone while I am driving ...
... right. (Score:5, Funny)
Uhh, no... (Score:5, Funny)
It is a great way to cut down on the number of people injured during a traffic accident! No more 2 car accidents with 3+ injured parties!!!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None, since cellphones weren't invented when it was wrytten. Neither were cars, and yet every state has restrictions - age, plus some form of proficiency test - on who can operate one. And neither were airplanes, and yet there's the FAA.
Are those all unconstitutional too?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What in the Constitution would give the Government the power to regulate where and when I can use my cell phone?
What in the Constitution would give Government the power to regulate where and when you can kill your neighbors with a pitchfork?
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:4, Informative)
How is talking on a phone (hands free) different than talking with a passenger?
The research I've seen says it isn't and that talking on the phone with or without a hands-free device are both equally distracting and equally likely to cause accidents.
The only plus I can see for talking to passengers over someone via the phone is that the passenger is still able to be somewhat observant of the vehicle's surroundings and alert the driver if they notice something is going wrong. 2 distracted heads are better than one distracted head, or something...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
So its just like ignoring the god damn call until you're off the road.
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
FSM forbid that driving might require self-control.
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think you're oversimplifying to make your point. For one, it answers the call. Instead of somebody calling and thinking that you may just be out of coverage or you forgot to turn your ringer back on, they get told what the situation really is. If they are a friend or relative, they probably know you well enough to estimate when to try again. Of course, you may not want just anyone to know even that much about you, you may not have a parent or child who worries if they just don't get an answer, etc. But for people with a minor child, or a mother who can get a bit irrationally worried if they can't get in touch, or a job which requires them to respond, within reason, if the office calls, this could be very useful.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For one, it answers the call. Instead of somebody calling and thinking that you may just be out of coverage or you forgot to turn your ringer back on, they get told what the situation really is.
What you've just described is an away message for your voice mail.
While they're at it, v2 should let me tell people when I'm eating dinner.
And when I'm watching a movie.
And when I'm asleep.
[/sarcasm]
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do you assume that if a minor child is in a car that is in motion, that the child is driving the car?
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
People who freak out because some doesn't answer their cell phone instantly have deeper issues that aren't going to be solved by an automated message from a machine.
In reality they need to seek professional help for their disorder, or at the very least remind them that our species survived just fine 15 years ago before everyone had cell phones.
I have inlaws like this, it's taken me several years of aggressivly not answering them to just get them to recognize that not answering the phone doesn't imply anything other than you didn't answer the phone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hence defeating the point of a cell phone.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's different because you don't need to remember to turn it back on.
When I turn my phone off, I also don't have to remember to pay the $10 to $20 per month fee for this "service" either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like exactly the same as turning the phone off. I smell a patent!
It is different because you do not need to pay a monthly fee to turn the phone off.
From TFA:
The company hopes to be able to announce early next year that the software is available through a carrier, probably for $10 to $20 per month for a family.
Nobody would ever switch to passenger mode "just this one time because it is important" while driving either.
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Interesting)
i agree that it's stupid to charge for this feature (really stupid), but the point of this is to provide a convenience to the subscriber, not to restrict their actions. this isn't like one of those court-ordered car breathalyzers that are meant to safeguard against poor judgment or deter stupid behavior.
chances are, if someone has this service enabled on their phone, they intend on using it. if they choose to ignore it, that's their business. it doesn't detract from the inherent usefulness of this service for those who don't want to be distracted while their car is moving.
frankly, i think legally requiring cellphone carriers to offer this type of service would be much more productive than the current state law in California requiring people to use hands-free headsets while driving--which is proven to be just as distracting as holding a phone to your ear. it's the act of engaging in a phone conversation while driving that causes accidents, not the fact that you're holding a phone with one hand. but i bet makers of hands-free headset are real happy about the government endorsement of their product.
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:4, Insightful)
People other than drivers use phones.
There is a function to turn the feature off.
It would seem that it would get turned on in a train automatically too.
Yes, people use phones in taxi's.
If you were going to post along those lines, save your typing fingers. It's like those four points over and over again for the page of comments.
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some people can actually drive and talk on a phone at the same time...."
And some people (the same set, actually) only think they can.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, talking on the phone is exactly as dangerous as talking to the person next to you in the car.
Which is often pretty damn dangerous.
Conclusion: yes, we can.
How does that follow? You shouldn't be talking to the person next to you if it endangers your driving.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed - I often say 'Quiet!' to my partner (Ms Motormouth) when approaching situations that require concentration.
She used to get offended, until I explained that concentrating on the road was more important than the latest news on her friend's bunions or whatever.
I do have selective hearing, but prefer not to have to divert concentration to employ it :)
And my phone has a 'Silent' mode (as do most if not all) which I always turn on while driving.
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Informative)
In most of the states that have banned cell phones while driving, the way the law is written covers CBs as well.
Fact is, all of the research shows that any conversation while driving is dangerously distracting. It takes attention off the road, and the brain takes nearly 3/4 of a second to shift focus back. If someone is on the phone (hands free or not), or yelling at their kids they are equally distracted and if something happens in front of them that doesn't give them 3/4 of a second window to react, they will get into an accident.
Its fairly well understood which cognitive activities don't mesh well with driving. Talking is one, although I've seen some studies that suggested that "disembodied" talking (where the other person isn't right there) is somewhat worse. Some things apparently aren't, like eating, although of course there's a risk of dropping or spilling which then turns into a distraction.
Of course cognitive scientists aren't asked when laws are being written, so they tend to cover the wrong things.
So the grandparent is quite right. And so are you, its the same set that thinks they can carry on a conversation safely. Only you were being sarcastic and were only accidentally correct.
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Funny)
Fact is, all of the research shows that any conversation while driving is dangerously distracting. It takes attention off the road, and the brain takes nearly 3/4 of a second to shift focus back. If someone is on the phone (hands free or not), or yelling at their kids they are equally distracted and if something happens in front of them that doesn't give them 3/4 of a second window to react, they will get into an accident.
I talk to passengers in the car and on the cellphone while I'm driving much as I do while I'm gaming, with the idle CPU cycles of my brain.
"Yes, dear."
"Uh huh."
"That sounds nice."
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would not be a problem if the drivers on the road had the IQ to leave a 2 second gap between them and the car in front of them. but just from my experience driving over the past 35 years, most of them out there are not anyway near smart enough.
Losing 3/4 a second for focus redirection is not a big deal when you drive safely. If you drive like the rest of the raging idiots on the road, they're less than 3/4 a second away from your bumper, and some incredibly stupid morons are less than .2 seconds away then that 3/4 a second time is too late.
Problem is the road is chock full of raging idiots that think their morning drive is a video game.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is different from the OFF button how? (Score:5, Funny)
That must be why the made it illegal to use the phone while driving, because it's so safe.
Tbh I can drive while drunk, want me to pick your kids up from school?
Its a good thing that passengers never make calls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its a good thing that passengers never make cal (Score:5, Informative)
Good thing there's a passenger mode and you can basically opt out. I have hands free in the car and I find it useful to take the occasional call, so I wouldn't use this in a car.
Motorbikes are different. I'd definitely use something like this eliminate the distraction of the phone ringing or buzzing when riding.
Re:Its a good thing that passengers never make cal (Score:5, Funny)
that must be one MOTHERFUCKING loud and obnoxious ring tone to hear it over the wind and bike flying down the highway :P
Perfect for lunch or movies :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You haven't seen his motor bike [kingsmotorbikes.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hear mine when I'm riding, but I do feel the vibrate.
Re:Its a good thing that passengers never make cal (Score:5, Funny)
Biker friend of mine had auto-answer on for a while on his in-helmet mike and speaker. I remember another friend complaining that he called him, it auto-picked up, and all friend 2 could hear was friend 1 going "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"! Friend 1 didn't even realise friend 2 was on the phone.
Justin.
Re:Its a good thing that passengers never make cal (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems like a feature that they're planning on selling to parents. Otherwise, if you can't remember to turn off your phone before getting in a car, what are the chances that you'll remember to turn off the cell lock when getting on a train, bus, or plane? This sounds exactly like the kind of Won't-Somebody-Please-Think-of-the-children that will lead to some expensive new gadget that simply annoys teenagers. It also, of course, gives them an all-new reason why they're not answering you when you call.
If you're an adult and you actually need this... LEARN TO IGNORE YOUR CALLS. Trust me, it's possible. People in Los Angeles have been masters of this for 40 years.
I really wish they'd create something that would turn Cellphones back on at the end of movies. I can't tell you how often I've gone for a day or two without being reachable simply because I was trying to scrub the memory of The Santa Clause 3 out of my brain.
Re:Its a good thing that passengers never make cal (Score:2)
I bet greyhound and Amtrack will not approve either.
Re:Its a good thing to RTFA (Score:2)
"override the motion-sensing feature to indicate that they're riding in car rather than driving".
And I'm sure you can initiate calls regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose is to give the driver the choice. It achieves that purpose. TFA mentions if you override it is logged, so parents/employers can nag you about it.
The only issue I have with the idea is that it costs $10 a month. Seems excessive. If it catches on I expect it would be a virtually free feature in later models.
How about I just don't answer it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody rides a train at car speeds, am I right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Train? I looked it up on wikipedia and I think I understand the concept. Its sort of like a bunch of cars where only the lead car is driving. In a way, its sort of like a tandem trailer with lots and lots of trailing wagons tied on the back. I guess you may have a point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't worry. (Score:5, Funny)
The "I'm in the back of an unmarked white van" patch has already been released.
Well this is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well this is stupid if you don't RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they have. You can TURN IT OFF if you're a passenger.
RTFA FFS.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with the OP on this one. If you can turn it off as a passenger, what's to stop me from turning it off AS THE DRIVER also?
Re:Well this is stupid if you don't RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit of an uninformed conclusion. Just because you can imagine a bunch of cases where such a feature is not a good idea, doesn't mean that there aren't cases where it would solve a lot of problems. If your job involved lots of short drives between destinations then it could be really useful. As soon as you start moving your phone won't interrupt you, as soon as you stop it lets you know about the calls you missed, and in the meantime it let the people trying to contact you know what's going on.
If you took your blinkers off you might realize that this is a feature that will be useful for some people, who will purchase it, and not so much for others, who won't purchase it. It's not a hard thing to get your hear around if you try. Nobodies going to purchase it and then try and figure out a way of defeating it.
If Slashdot was a crowded room, and someone were to come into the room and ask "Who owns the red car parked out the front", the answer "oh yeah, that's mine" would be lost amongst the noise of everyone else replying "It's not mine. I can't imagine why you'd think it was mine. How dare you suggest that I left a red car parked out the front".
"emergency voice mail" (Score:4, Insightful)
No, wrong, voice mail is more of a distraction than receiving text messages. Just don't enable the ability to respond to the text message until the car comes to a stop.
But what about passengers?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
when some asshole is talking on the phone while I'm waiting in line.
What, we should all just wait in miserable silence, like you? Put our lives on hold because we're disrupting your perfect universe of quiet solitude? Maybe you want to waste time in line, but we don't. So get fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always found this to be quite odd. People getting pissed at others for talking on the phone. What if I were talking to another person standing next to me? Would that piss you off? Now take that other person and put some distance between us and give us a device to allow us to not have to shout to hear each other... Let's call that device a 'cell-phone'.
Or are you pissed that you're only hearing one half of the conversation?
Re: (Score:2)
a device to allow us to not have to shout to hear each other... Let's call that device a 'cell-phone'.
Clearly it's not living up to spec...
Your call is important to me... (Score:3, Funny)
Should go over well with friends and family.
Slight oversight (Score:5, Interesting)
Car passengers don't get to make phone calls either?
But more importantly, what is Iron Man going to do to call off missiles being shot at him now?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Not in America, no. Public transport in America is only for the very, very poor.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Seems to be a myth (Score:2)
I take the bus to work in colorado about half the time, it's really quite a reasonable and frequent service given how far out of town i am.
My parents live a similar distance from edinburgh and I can assure you that their public transit is significantly poorer.
I think it gets skewed because most US impressions of europe are of big cities like London and Paris that have exceptional public transport (probably not too unlike NYC either)
Re:Seems to be a myth (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually NYC is screwed up compared to many U.S. cities. Since they built the very first subways in the US, and a lot of other cities learned from their mistakes. Washington DC for example, has really good public transit, and the parts I've seen of Atlanta, while a pretty limited sample around the airport and convention centers and hotels, look very good too. New York isn't nearly as bad as most US tourists think, but having the terminals underground to give a smaller surface footprint makes it harder for the police to keep problems out - there's places that have solidly licked that particular problem just by putting the turnstyle level above ground with plenty of glass around it, and others that feel they can afford enough beat cops to really watch the entrances.
Re: (Score:2)
More than just that they're driving... (Score:2)
From the video: "Press 3 to request subscriber location information."
Great. So, not only is it blocking all communication while moving sufficiently fast, it's also reporting your location back to anyone who calls.
It seems to be presented as something you'd put on a teen's phone. Great for the parents, I'm sure. The teens are going to hate it.
And for what it's worth, it's not incredibly difficult to talk on the phone while driving -- or to ignore it. I'm sure drunk driving is a much bigger problem.
Feedback! (Score:2)
While I'm at it, they have a feedback form [aegismobility.com] -- it requires subscribing to their spam^Wnewsletter, but it's possible they actually don't know how much this idea sucks.
Re:More than just that they're driving... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Common misconception and just plain wrong
The reactions of drivers on phone calls are [theage.com.au] worse [walk.com.au] than [nowwearetalking.com.au] the reactions of drunk drivers. Check those links, or use google, you'll find a mass of studies supporting this.
So if you are someone who thinks it's okay to drive while on the phone, please turn in you license and refrain from driving at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, I do buy it. I'm not stupid enough to say, "Hey, that research which points to a truth I personally find uncomfortable must be funded by people I disagree with," just because I find it uncomfortable.
There are related studies that have looked at the difference in brain activity between people involved in a conversation and people concentrating on other visual stimuli that show that important motor skills can suffer when people are chatting.
There are also studies that show that smoking pot is more of a d
Re:More than just that they're driving... (Score:5, Informative)
anyone that CAN'T drive while talking on the phone should turn in their licence or refrain from driving at all.
Same goes for drunk driving.
I am perfectly capable of driving while drunk. The chance of killing myself or someone else in a crash increases from a tiny fraction of a percent when sober to a larger fraction of a percent when drunk. Anyone CAN drive drunk without killing anyone 99+ percent of the time.
Comparing drunk driving to driving with a cell phone is even more ridiculous
What, are you doing a Steven Colbert impression? You don't look stuff up in books because books are just filled with worthless facts? You don't use your brain, you just go with whatever your gut says?
Scientific research finds that drivers on cellphones have WORSE reaction times than criminally-drunk drivers:
Alcohol merely slows brain processing and reaction times. Using a cellphone entirely diverts higher brain functions, the task of driving is passed off to the brain's lower level autopilot systems. The brain's higher awareness systems are focused on the cellphone, unexpected events on the road outside may go completely unnoticed, and when they are noticed it takes longer to do so, and it takes the higher brain systems a moment to drop what they were doing and to switch over to processing the outside event, and then to first come up with the appropriate reaction. Drinking SLOWS reaction times to an unexpected event by a fraction of a second, but ususing a cellphone DELAYS reaction time to unexpected events by an even LARGER fraction of a second.
Autopilot-driving is sufficient to drive a car 99 percent of the time. Disasters generally occur when someone has a delayed or inappropriate reaction to some unexpected event, like a child running out into the road or someone cutting you off, or the car in front of you breaking. You can't just 'turn off your phone' after some other driver unexpectedly swerves into your lane. Well you CAN, but that is pointlessly too late to turn the cellphone off. You've already lost the reaction time and already hit someone.
-
Re:More than just that they're driving... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their have been TV shows where people tested cell phone subjects, i.e. driving in a parking with cones laid out, or at a track, and pretty frequently, people using cell phones have reaction times similar to people who are legally drunk, and make similar numbers and types of mistakes. I've even seen examples where the reporter or host has told a driver, "What you've just done compares to a person who's driving with a BAQ of about 0.18 or 0.22." So don't be too sure drunk driving is a much bigger problem. It might just be that the drunk is drunk the whole journey, and the cell phone user is only an increased risk while they are actually on the phone, and most calls don't last the whole trip.
Re: (Score:2)
(Just a few thoughts on the matter, not advocacy for or against any particular regulation or lack thereof regarding
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Their have been TV shows
Whose?
Please... (Score:3, Funny)
Some facts (Score:5, Informative)
From here [aegismobility.com]
but don't let that get into your 2 minutes of hate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You left out one other feature
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. said it plans to offer a discount of 3 percent to 10 percent on family policies for people who use DriveAssistT.
I imagine you've been on /. long enough to see the implications of that.
The insurance company 'discount' will quickly become a premium for everyone else.
Especially if the service is only available from one cellular company.
Personally, I don't see that happening soon,
since the software is limited to relatively expensive GPS enabled WinMo & Symbian phones.
hrm.. (Score:2)
When all you have is a hammer (Score:2)
.... everything looks like a nail.
I predict a sudden rise in "emergencies"
The Nanny-Staters will love this... (Score:2)
Optional (Score:2)
How much of a Nanny State (Score:2)
Dumb idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
This brings to mind the "feature" in most navigation systems where most functionality is disabled while driving. Terrible idea, as it winds up being more distracting trying to work around it.
Case in point, the Nissan/Infiniti navi/entertainment stuff in my sister-in-law's car. It disables certain "more complex" functions when moving. One of the disabled features is browsing for a song to play from a CF card. Result: you spend more time playing with the thing trying to find the song you were looking for, which means the "safety feature" has in fact created an additional distraction.
The time I had to pull off the freeway in a "not-so-nice" area to reprogram my navigation system (had accidentally selected avoid freeways without realizing it) is another simple example of the dangers of such nannyware. Had to do this because the Nav thought it would be too dangerous for me to push "Dest", and then "Previous Destination", and then toggle the "Freeway" checkbox.
The next day a $2.50 Radio Shack switch was installed to disable the vehicle speed sensor feed wire. :D More modern navs can't be worked around in this fashion, but you can often scour torrent sites for "patches" to navigation DVDs to work around the speed-disable "feature". Some companies even make a living at it by building add on modules to the system itself, e.g. http://www.coastaletech.com/gmx320.htm [coastaletech.com]. It's a requirement for any vehicle I purchase from here on out that any such "nanny features" be capable of being disabled.
No one wants this. I wouldn't touch a phone with it. Good luck with that.
How does it work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPS in a phone can tell indeed tell you how fast you are going. They take all the information they can get (including cell tower data), since their primary requirement is an extremely robust fix under all circumstances (cf 911 dispatch).
I've done work with GPS location stuff under Brew, and two things come to my mind immediately: applications need the equivalent of root privilege to alter the phone call progress, and GPS fixes cost money. At least they did on Sprint when we were testing. Maybe they do
this seems like a good idea (Score:2)
It will work well for most people, but they don't keep a handset which doesn't work while they drive.
It will prevent a lot of accidents. People just won't want to use it. Good intentions, good tech, bad to force it on people.
Re: (Score:2)
It will prevent a lot of accidents. People just won't want to use it. Good intentions, good tech, bad to force it on people.
I say the opposite. It isn't being forced on people, it is optional, but still a bad idea, and won't prevent any accidents. Anybody with an ounce of common sense already doesn't answer their cell phone while driving, and nobody would enable a feature like this. Most likely, the only effect this will have is frustrating people where this feature is enabled by default, causing their cell phone to mysteriously miss important calls, and then a week later they discover this feature and disable it.
Speed Limits?! (Score:2)
What if you're a passenger in a car? Even if they could pinpoint the location with GPS's limitation, how do they know you're the driver?
In addition, every state, and every country has a different speed limit (even different counties). For example, the speed limit in the stretches around the Puget Sound range from 55 to 65 MPH. Other states in the US have speed limits up to 70, and some of which where the highways have little towns and even less local traffic (such as N. Dakota) have little to no speed limit
Revoke Their Insurance (Score:2)
Any time a driver is in a collision, their phone records should be searchable by their insurance corp for whether they were in a voice, text or other mobile phone session. If they were, and there's no evidence that the phone was operated by someone else (a passenger, left with someone at home, etc), they should be entitled to zero liability protection from their insurance. And their risk rating should get a lot worse.
Some people can drive while phoning. Everyone who tries it should be absolutely sure that t
What about 911? (Score:2)
Kidnapped and in the trunk of a car...oops.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect you could differentiate based on the GPS location, or perhaps just speed. Most passenger trains seem to go a bit faster than typical highway speeds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Clown Cars? (Score:2)
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/msi/lowres/msin139l.jpg [cartoonstock.com]
http://www.break.com/pictures/bark-banger-clown-car514174.html [break.com]
http://www.skooogle.com/content/binary/motivation_clown_car.jpg [skooogle.com]
pull the sim card and then call 911 as that puts a (Score:2)
pull the sim card and then call 911 as that puts alot of phones in to a basic mode.
Re: (Score:2)
You, and half the rest here.
Re:Will anyone use it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the vast majority think they are above average drivers. They think _they_ are special. They can handle it, it won't distract them. It's pretty much the same arguments drunk drivers use.
Of course many laws trying to fix the cell phone and drive problem are delusional too. They allow hands free phones, as if multiple studies haven't found that it's about as bad as a hand held phone while driving.
Stop trying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly every time I see someone driving outlandishly stupid on the road, they're using a cell phone. However, there are more stupid things that you can do while driving that are more distracting than a cell phone: changing the radio, eating, drinking, looking for something, reading directions. None of these things are illegal, merely discouraged.
Outlawing cell phone use while driving is futile; there are always ways to get around it, e.g., hands-free links. If there is no way to enforce a law, it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I think if we stopped trying to ban it and merely strongly recommended not using cell phones while driving, we would see an effective drop in the number of people using cell phones while driving. Seat belts, for instance, weren't enforced until this past decade (at least in my state). However, advertising, education, and signs asking you to buckle up made it so the vast majority did buckle up. Was it illegal to drive without a seat belt on? No. Was it safe? Yes, so most people did it. Why can't we approach the cellphone problem like we approached the seat belt problem? Why are we so gungho about laws and declaring everything unsatisfactory illegal nowadays?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of these things are illegal, merely discouraged.
But it is illegal to not be properly in charge of your vehicle, so if doing these things are distracting you, then they are illegal...
Besides, in the UK people have been stopped and fined for eating while driving because they were judged not be in control of their vehicle when doing so..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue isn't that people use cell phones on the road. The issue is that they're using a cell phone while on a section of road that needs their full attention. I can think of plenty of times when talking on my cell phone while driving isn't remotely dangerous. For instance, I might be driving on a stretch of interstate for 50 miles or so where I am not going through any major towns, and am not changing highways etc. In such an instance, talking on the cell phone is not such a distraction that you can'
Re: (Score:2)
Is it that hard NOT to take a call while driving?
evidently, YES.