US May Disable All Car Phones, Says Trans. Secretary 1065
gambit3 writes "The US government may require cars to include scrambling tech that would disable mobile-phone use by drivers, and perhaps passengers. 'I think it will be done,' US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said on Wednesday morning. 'I think the technology is there and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones.' LaHood is on a self-described 'rampage' against distracted driving, and if making it impossible to use a mobile phone while in a car can save lives, he's all for it."
Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to see this happen. Just yesterday, I watched the driver in front of me smash his car through a fence into someone's backyard. He'd been on the phone. If someone had been in the way at the time, they'd be dead.
Unfortunately, the same corporate CEO's who make calls in their cars also buy congresspeople, so I think the odds are slim this kind of legislation would pass.
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Because powerful politician buying CEOs are driving themselves, right ? :)
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
FCC will not allow this.
There are already clear laws on the books prohibiting cell phones in prisons, yet the FCC will not allow cell jamming in prisons.
The number of cell phone induced accidents is GROSSLY inflated in another act of security theater. Cops are instructed to report cell phone involvement if the merely SEE a cell phone in an accident.
You only need one story like this Bad Cell Phone Reception Made Reporting Bus Accident More Difficult [kwes.com] to realize how dumb this would be. People dieing by the side of the road because no one can call for help due to all the vehicles jamming signals.
Not going to happen.
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Interesting)
FCC will not allow this.
There are already clear laws on the books prohibiting cell phones in prisons, yet the FCC will not allow cell jamming in prisons.
What I don't understand is why people want to jam cell phones in prisons. All you need to do is surround the prison with cell towers that *you* control and then whitelist any cell #'s that you authorize. Any other cell # gets cut off at the tower and you have a wonderful record of how many illegal cell phones there are in the prison. No jamming required at all!
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Interesting)
So far I've gotten 4 drunk drivers off the road, reported 2 extremely dangerous incidencts where debris fell onto a freeway (railroad tie and blown into traffic sign on its side pointed forward so as to be on edge to a driver)... and had 0 related phone related accidents.
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Interesting)
I freely admit this is anecdotal evidence, but in the last four years I've had four people run into the back end of my car when I was stopped at a stoplight. Every time I've seen it coming, and I've seen the person talking on a cellphone right up to the moment of impact.
I'm having some bumperstickers made that say "is that call worth $2500?/that's how much bumper replacements will cost you" if I can trim the second line down to something legible on a bumper sticker. Though they'll be too busy talking on their phones to read it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People make the lamest excuses for continuing to use their cell phones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
well with the inclusion of GPS tech in all phones thanks to laws past 9 years ago.. no jamming is needed.. just require the phone to not function if it detects it is moving faster than 5-10mph
Yes, because nobody takes the train, takes the bus, rides a bike, goes sailing, or any one of a thousand other things that can produce those speeds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're on the train that's even more of a reason not to use a phone. Nobody else want's to hear your conversation.
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Funny)
it's arguably more retarded. however, both ideas are extremely retarded, so it's not even worth arguing.
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that everyone can turn off GPS in their phones.
You would also have to block all cellular radio traffic, email, web surfing for passengers, just to close the Dread Skype Hole.
This idea will kill more American accident victims in the first year than 9/11. There are 3 million [articlesnatch.com] injured in car crashes (not counting fatalities) in the US each year, with some 2 million of these being serious/permanent injuries. If just 10% of those were denied the ability to call for help, either by themselves or passersby, imagine the death toll.
LaHood > Bin Ladden.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's trivial to _infer_ acceleration from the only data GPS provides, which is location, yes. But you're forgetting one of the first rules of computer science. Garbage in, garbage out. If the location is wrong, then the velocity and acceleration will be wrong as well. I can't tell you how many times I've used my GPS-enabled phone to track my bicycling route and at the end it tells me my maximum speed was 40 (or in one memorable case, 400) mph.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nokia's N series cell phones do not need a cell signal to use the GPS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I drive while talking on the cell phone all the time. I know the road like the back of my hand, and I keep a longer stopping distance to compensate for the extended reaction time. When I see vehicles encroaching on that stopping distance or changing lanes rapidly in front of me or braking, I say "hold on" and I switch my focus fully over to the road until road conditions improve.
That is exactly the argument that drink drivers always use.
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Interesting)
I really feel like I saved someone's life that day.
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe he had suffered from a stroke [standard.net] or was diabetic [clickondetroit.com] and my call to the police got the emergency help he needed? We'll never know, but I'm glad I helped get him off the road that day, whatever the reason for the reckless driving.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget calls to area news radio stations to report traffic backups. Those reports reduce dangerous traffic slowdowns that would otherwise result in significant numbers of accidents in the backup. For every wreck caused by cell phones, there are dozens of wrecks prevented by them---maybe even hundreds.
Also, for people who have to drive late
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just not seeing the backups. It's the stupid lane changing maniacs trying to force their way through the backups. If every one of those people got text message alerts notifying them of backups, and if every one of those backups were adequately reported by someone calling on a cell phone, many of those accidents would not happen because the people who were in a hurry would find an alternate route around the problem and would miss the backup entirely. When I listen to traffic reports in the San Francisco Bay area, it's almost inevitable that in any backup, there will always be at least one, and often two or three additional accidents in the backup. Backups cause accidents, whether you want to admit it or not. Not fatal accidents, generally speaking, but accidents.
Stop right there. I'm talking about an hour-long commute at night on U.S. interstate highways and similar, which A. have few (if any) complex junctions by any stretch of the imagination, and B. involves sitting there driving for twenty miles going in a straight line without even changing lanes. I always stop talking before any exit ramp, and that's as complex as the junctions get. It is not only possible, but easy to drive responsibly while having low-stress phone conversations. Some of us are that sensible, and our rights should not be taken away merely because a few idiots don't know how to drive. Spank the idiots with fines for unsafe driving. We already have laws on the books to cover that adequately without introducing new draconian laws that contribute nothing of value.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think if you buy a new luxury car with both a built-in cell phone and a built-in cell phone jammer, you deserve to pay extra for something you can't use. You're a moron.
The requirement for a cell jammer in cars would apply to NEW cars.
Fun scenario: car crashes, passengers are trapped. Scrambler stays active. Passengers (and possibly people nearby) can't call
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever heard of a directional wave. It's not trivial but definitely possible to disable cell transmission to a single sector of a car.
Because the antenna of a cell used by a driver is always located in the vicinity of the driver's seat.
Oh, wait, that's pathetically wrong [lmgtfy.com]. Any car with a built-in communication system is already exempt from your brilliant suggestion. So is any hand-held cell phone with any kind of headset or hands-off capability, if it's clipped or placed anywhere in the car other than the driver's seat or console. Like the dash board in the front passenger's vicinity.
"Directional waves". Lol.
And btw, assuming you meant that first sentence as a rhetorical question, even rhetorical questions end with a question mark, don'tcha know?
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Super idea. Let's take away the ability for anybody inside a vehicle (and presumably within some radius outside of it too) to make a 911 call in the case of an emergency.
Idiocy.
No kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
About 6 years ago I crashed my car and the first thing I did after I was no longer dazed was fish out my cell phone and call 911. The faster that call was made, the faster first responders could get there. Thankfully nobody was all that seriously hurt, but I was glad I could summon help quickly, and without having to get out of the car. At first, I wasn't sure I could move under my own power (turned out I could just took a bit).
I don't disagree that distracted drivers are a problem but you get to the whole baby/bathwater situation. Deal with distracted drivers, maybe by requireing more stringent testing, better enforcement, whatever. Just having shitloads of rolling cellphone jammers is a bad idea. The prevelence of cellphones is something that helps make us safer these days. People can quickly and accurately summon emergency responders. That is of value, let's not fuck it up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed a step or two: Pull over, stop the car, get out of the car regardless of the weather conditions or any personal threat you may face (there are lots of reasons people call 911), possibly walk away from the car until the jamming field subsides ... and finally, make the call.
Or how about this one: Convince the driver of the car to pull over, plead with the driver to pull over so you can get out, keep pleading with the driver "please, please, stop the car! just stop the car!" ... repeat as necessary.
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Just pull over, stop the car, and make the call. That's what I did in the "crash through the fence" incident I described.
Yeah, this is the best thing about the anti-cellphone laws: now instead of driving along the road while talking on their phone, the morons _STOP THEIR CAR_ no matter where they may be, forcing me to pass them on blind bends or residential streets where they just stopped in the middle of the road.
Morons are morons, trying to stop them being morons just makes them act moronically in a slightly different way.
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
As cell phone accidents are only a small percentage of actual accidents, I would say they are not worth the effort of mandating tech to disable them.
Let X = total number of negligent accidents caused by inexperienced drivers or drivers distracted by passengers.
Let Y = Total number of accidents caused by cell phone distraction.
Do you really think Y is higher than X? I'd bet X is two orders of magnitude higher than Y.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From that site:
- Despite the risks, the majority of teen drivers ignore cell phone driving restrictions.
- Talking on a cell phone while driving can make a young driver's reaction time as slow as that of a 70-year-old.
- 56% of teenagers admit to talking on their cell phones behind the wheel, while 13% admit to texting while driving. (Note: B
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
What has this got to do with Communism? I don't follow?
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Because thanks to Republican propoganda, idiots think any government regulation is "communist" and evil, no matter how anti-communist, or not evil it actually is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But most totalitarian states are/were not communist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to go all terminology-pedant on you, because I've been hearing the wingnut teabaggers misuse "communist", "socialist", and "fascist" for a while now as fear words.
Communism is a *socioeconomic* philosophy, where property is held in common, particularly means of production, with common access to means of consumption. It has nothing to do with quantity or quality of government regulation.
Totalitarianism is a *political* philosophy where the state recognizes no bounds to its power to control the act
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. There were more pay phones before the advent of cell phones.
2. People died due to being unable to contact help (they still do, but you hear about it more because it's unusual now).
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
People have been driving for over 50 years without having cell phones. If you think this is too heinous, then you're far too addicted to your phone.
-1000 Missed Point.
... well, I'd say we have a much greater problem. That is, millions of human beings who are so incapable of exercising restraint and good judgment while operating a motor vehicle that they shouldn't really have been granted driver's licenses in the first place. That problem, however, would require far more intestinal fortitude that any politician would be capable of mustering, because everyone feels that they are, at worst, an average driver and that they are entitled to a driver's license even if they are a danger to themselves and others.
The belief that people should not communicate via cell phone while driving is not in dispute here. What is being is argued is that the Federal Government should not be in the dubious business of forcibly eliminating a communications channel used by millions of people, and that if they're going to do that, they'd better have a damn sight better justification.
If distracted driving is truly causing such an incredible amount of death and destruction as to warrant mandating jamming devices in every single automobile on the road
Fact is, distracted driving is a symptom of that larger problem, that of drivers who are poorly-trained and almost completely unaware of the consequences of their actions. These are members of the same drain-bamaged subset of the human species who were causing fatal accidents back when the horse and buggy ruled the road. You have to fix the people before you can fix the problem, and banning, nay jamming cellular communication is a band-aid at best, and as is typical with much high-profile safety-related regulation nowadays, it will cause as much harm as it prevents. The people responsible will never own up to that, of course.
I'm waiting for MADD to spin off MADD (Mother's Against Distracted Driving) and get another Constitutional Exception rammed through, so that our supposedly guaranteed due-process rights can be violated for simply using a cell phone. You laugh, but as of right now NHTSA inflates drunk-driving statistics by counting an accident as "alcohol-related" even if the driver was stone-cold sober, and you are essentially convicted by the cop as soon as you submit to a breathalyzer test. MADD uses those "numbers" to justify their near-fascist agenda, and if you think the same thing couldn't happen here you're fooling yourself, and in fact I'm thinking that this is exactly what this is all about: removing yet another cornerstone from the Constitution.
Stupid is as stupid does, and fascists never seem to understand that nobody likes them, and that we wish they would all just go away and die a painful, lonely death.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have, I bet many others have too. I got my car towed and did not have to sit out in the winter cold and risk death.
Re:Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Even when my phone is locked I can press 9-1-1-Talk and get connected to help. Hopefully this technology would work in a similar fashion such that emergency calls were always allowed to go through.
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that radio jammers can't distinguish 911 calls.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that radio jammers can't distinguish 911 calls.
That's probably true which is why this solution would have to be something more than a simple radio jammer. Turn the car into a faraday cage and then the only "tower" your phone sees is the repeater broadcasting in your car. Then the repeater allows/disallows calls based on vehicle state and destination number. I'm over simplifying things and talking out my ass here but there are solutions to do it right :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of about 5 DWI drivers I've called in over the years that wouldn't have gotten nailed had I not been able to call - expecting me to pull over while they drive away is damned stupid. Being able to stay on the line and inform police as to their whereabouts proved invaluable in getting them off the road. By contrast the number of accidents I've been personally involved in either as victim or as driver that I can attribute to a cell phone is 1 possible although frankly I attribute that one to the ot
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let's just punish everyone driving instead of holding individuals accountable for their reckless driving?
Sometimes the right wing yelps of "Nanny State!" aren't just a boy crying wolf.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Talking on a cell phone while driving increases your risk of an accident by 400%.
http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/ [utah.edu]
This isn't about some individual reckless drivers talking on the cell phone. It's a limitation of our brains.
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what, so does eating while driving, changing the radio station, changing clothes, dealing with crying toddler in back of car, and even talking to someone else located in the car. The fact is anything can be a severe distraction to driving.
Poor judgement leads to accidents and not the items being used. And as someone famously said, "You can't fix stupid."
Re:Go for it (Score:5, Informative)
That's a fine opinion, but look at the research. The data don't agree with you. Driving while talking on a cell phone turns out worse than all the things you mention, when actually measured. There seems to be something special about the way the brain handles a phone conversation that impairs the ability to multitask more severely.
Don't take my word for it. Read the research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that like if you take the idiots cellphone distraction away from them they would just look for that song on their ipod, or program the GPS or even change their 8-track tape instead; idiots will be idiots. How about tying their tie or putting on their eye makeup, changing their pants, bras or shoes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is pure pedantic-ism on my part: Accidents happen. Too much beer and no restrooms nearby may result in an accident. Trusting a fart when you are over 40 may result in an even worse accident.
However, when it pertains to vehicles, there is no such thing as an accident. Instead, they are wrecks or collisions where one or more parties broke the rules of the road and damage or personal injury resulted.
This is just a personal rant of mine, because I know people who have gotten in some serious collisions
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not something that only the right wing wants. Remember, Obama has been in office for 2 years now, and the TSA, as part of the Dept. of Homeland Security, is under his direct control (and Janet Napolitano, a Democrat), as it is part of the Executive Branch. If Obama wanted to do something about TSA's groping behaviors, he would have done so by now.
Since this stuff was started under Bush, and continues under Obama, the most reasonable conclusion is that the left and right wings both want a nanny stat
Re: (Score:2)
So why not call for cars to be banned? Just because some dumbasses misuse phones doesn't mean everybody should be prevented form using them, any more than the fact some drivers are terminally incompetent should mean that all cars ought to be banned. It's ridiculous. By all means increase the penalties for people caught misusing phones in a vehicle, that would make some sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The data show that your risk of an accident increases while 4x when you're on the phone.
http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/ [utah.edu]
This has nothing to do with "misuse." It's a human limitation.
Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I followed the link and your risk of accident increases 4x while TEXTING. That's a lot more involved than merely talking. I didn't click on that link to watch that video, but my first question would be, "4x more likely than what?" I could easily say that you're 1000x more likely to get into an accident while on the cellphone compared to me (sitting in my car in my parking space).
I have made two or three 911 calls from my car over the years. Would I have had to pull over -- if that's even possible -- and turn off my car to call now? Would someone on the sidewalk nearby be able to make calls with nearby cars streaming by at rush hour?
Live Traffic info? (Score:3, Insightful)
GPS navigation devices can download live traffic info using cellphones. How is this supposed to work if all cellphones are jammed?
OnStar can give directions using the cellphone network. How is this supposed to work if all cellphones are jammed?
You are in an accident and you need your onstar system to call for help. Can you be sure the jammer was disabled?
etc.....
There are too many uses for cellphones other than just making calls, many of which improve safety. The cat is out of the bag and it is too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a significant difference between "don't have cell service" and "deliberate and willful interference with a licensed user of a frequency". If you want to paint your theater walls with aluminum-based airplane dope to create a Faraday cage for the victims, I mean v
Mandatory chastity belts? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mandatory chastity belts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory chastity belts? (Score:4, Funny)
People will do absolutely anything while driving. I have personally witnessed the following activities performed by a (presumably) sober adult, driving a vehicle at ~70 mph on I-75 south in Atlanta:
1) Playing the the flute. The driver had both hands on the flute, with sheet music propped up on the wheel. He was steering the car with his knees.
2) Shaving one's head. This man was peering into his rear view mirror, head lathered with shaving cream, shaving his head with a STRAIGHT RAZOR.
Fucking nanny-state moron. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if you're being followed by a suspicious person, and you want to call for help, you're out of luck because some douchebag like LaHood decided that you're not capable of exercising your own judgement!
Or, if you crash your car, but not hard enough to disable the jammer, you're fucked because you can't call 911.
Why the FUCK is this guy getting paid by the taxpayers?
Re:Fucking nanny-state moron. (Score:5, Informative)
Settle down all you knee-jerkers, that's not actually what he said [dot.gov]
Re:Fucking nanny-state moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
"“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that. A number of [cell technology innovators] came to our Distracted Driving Summit here in Washington and presented their technology, and that’s one way. "
He said they're "looking at it", as in still considering...present tense. It may be a sloppy sentence and not what he meant, but this was his CLARIFICATION of what he meant and still managed to not say he was against it.
this idea is painfully stupid at face value. The fact that he'd even give it the time of day is scary.
To save even more lives... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ray LaHood is an idiot, BTW.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just disable all cars...
LaHood is working on it:
On February 3, 2010, LaHood was criticized for advice he was asked to give while testifying before a congressional committee regarding Toyota's recall of 2.3 million vehicles due to sudden acceleration, wherein he suggested Toyota owners stop driving their cars.
Actually, he should have said, "People who don't know how to drive their cars, should not drive their cars." Putting the accelerator pedal so close to the brake pedal is obviously a design error for the intellectually challenged, who will confuse the two and blame the car manufacturer. The accelerator pedal should be on the driver's side; the brake pedal on the passenger's side.
Dumb-ass Toyota driver: "I've got my foot pushed down to the floor, but the car is not stopping!"
Poli
He's an idiot? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because he said [dot.gov] "you have to have people take personal responsibility " and " there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving" ? That's idiotic?
Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...
2003 VW (Score:2)
Looks like I'll be keeping this 2003 VW a little longer. Thanks for saving me from that future car payment Ray.
won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Billboards (Score:5, Insightful)
German Autobahn (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't even see the gas prices of the Autobahn gas stations until you exit the Autobahn because advertising is strictly prohibited.
Whats going to stop me from disabling it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Remove the scrambler and sell it on ebay to pranksters.
This makes me sad. (Score:3, Insightful)
distributed jamming ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Accidents, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well duh! Periodically accelerate to 100mph, then stick it into neutral and switch the engine off. Check your phone while coasting. If you crash due to steering lock/no servo brakes/no power steering, you can use your phone to call for help.
Your next-generation, DRM-locked automobile (Score:5, Insightful)
So, a politician thinks that it's important for both your next automobile and phone to be DRM-locked, so that your phone will only work when the passenger is operating it (verified by some sort of computer vision, eh), or your phone will disable itself when it senses it's moving at vehicle speed, but only in a passenger automobile, not a train or bus.
Right.
Right after that, we'll get DRM-locked homes to protect us from all sorts of bad stuff: the wrong people having sex, etc.
I really don't think so. If the Secretary of Transportation wants to work on something good for safety, self-driving automobiles are much more likely to 1) work and 2) save lives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's just right-wing bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, sorry. Right-wingers just don't THINK about what things really cost. You pay perhaps a fifth of the cost of driving your car. You don't pay the cost of all of the roads and infrastructure, the cost of the wars our country goes to so that you can have cheap gasoline, the cost of the environmental damage and the cost to our quality of life because cities and suburbs are both covered with automotive infrastructure and its fallout. You whine up a storm when asked to pay for it though! No Kyoto treaty! Yes t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Me too. They'd be lower if we had more mass transit and fewer automobiles.
Mostly via freight rail, at 500+ ton-miles per gallon of less-refined diesel fuel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
THAT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE!
Actually, the folks who harvested your food don't own automobiles. Or much of anything, including citizenship.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The owner's TCO for a motor vehicle is not the societal cost. The societal cost includes highways and other infrastructure (not paid for entirely with that gas tax), the wars we go to so that Americans can have gasoline at 1/5 the price of much of the world, the unnecessary deaths and injuries, the time cost to the individual who can't do any activity but drive while in transit, the environmental impact, the various issues that automobile transit heaps upon both cities and suburbs - sprawl, traffic, etc. S
Basically no chance of this happening (Score:4, Insightful)
Na ganna happen. (Score:2)
Will this jamming technology stop you from calling for help after an accident? Will you have to get out of your car to make a call if your car breaks down? How about calling the police when you see a crime or a reckless driver? Is it incompatible with OnStar, LoJack, and other auto tracking devices? Will it break GPS navigation? If jamming phones becomes mandatory, will all existing cars have to be retrofitted to stay street legal?
Despite the transportation secretary's wet dreams, this will never, ever
Accidents happen... (Score:2)
and I'd like to know if this disabling happens when you get in the car, start it or put the car in gear. If you're in an accident, wouldn't you want you phone to work to call help?
Why not just take driving away? (Score:4, Insightful)
Neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pry the black box out of a vehicle and stick it in your pocket with a battery and you won't have to put up with idiots shouting into their cellphones in your train carriage/bus/cinema/restaurant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can legally block signals on your own property, but you have to do it passively so as to not affect the property of others.
Courts have ruled against jamming. Fine.
But the wording of the court decisions and FCC regulations do not prohibit you from building structures which degrade or -passively- block cell signals. :-)
Thick walls containing lots of rebar will block signals, but are not always practical on a train car.
There's nothing illegal about painting walls using paint with a high concentration of me
No calls when moving at all (Score:2)
Most of the ways I've seen discussed to do this are with speed sensors in the phone. That means if you are moving faster than x speed your phone won't work. The end result of this is that not only can you not use your phone when driving, your passengers can't use it. You also can't use it on a train, a completely passive activity.
People will find ways to use their phones. All these bans do is make them be more discrete about it. When will politicians learn you can't legislate away stupidity.
If only they'd use their power for good (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it, when technology has both a useful and an annoying potential use, it's 10 times more likely the annoying use gets implemented?
For example, my car has a seat belt light that comes on if there is a front-seat passenger who is not wearing a seat belt. No passenger, no light. My car also has a passenger-side airbag, which is disabled if there is no passenger.
But for the built-in nav system, the controls are disabled even when there is a passenger.
This makes no sense to me. What's the use of having a second person in the car if they can't act as navigator?
Sensors could easily be built in to the steering wheel to enable all interactive systems when the driver has both hands on the wheel.
I get that I shouldn't talk on my cell phone or text while driving, and I don't. But why shouldn't my passenger be able to make a call or look for the nearest gas station on the GPS?
This is just one more thing that will have to be cracked.
Can we put him in jail for manslaughter (Score:4, Insightful)
When the first person trapped in a car dies because his cell phone wouldn't work and he couldn't call for help?
Hello? 911 (Score:3, Insightful)
So what happens when I'm in a car accident, bleeding to death, and reach for my cell phone and find out it doesn't work because some paper pusher decided I had to be *out* of the car to use my phone... Do I just die, content in the knowledge that it really was for the best?
So, what if I have a car with bluetooth receiver? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am about to buy a stereo unit for my car with bluetooth phone receiver. The phone will connect wirelessly to my stereo allow me to be on the cell phone completely hands free. I will be no more distracted than any other driver who is talking to his passengers. How is this dangerous, and why does the government want to disable this tech innovation?
Re:So, what if I have a car with bluetooth receive (Score:4, Informative)
I will be no more distracted than any other driver who is talking to his passengers.
Actually, this is not true.
The problem with talking and driving is NOT the hands free aspect. The real problem is with the way the human mind works. When you are talking to someone who is physically in your car, your brain does not need to do work to "see" that person. You don't have to imagine what they are doing or how they are looking because they are sitting right next to you. This is true EVEN IF YOU NEVER LOOK AT THEM. When you are on a call phone, part of your brain responsible for visual aspects (AKA looking at the road) is now occupied. That's why you get the "blind driver effect" in which people who have been talking on their phones don't remember driving from point A to point B (or they blackout on parts). So, bluetooth does not do anything to help you overcome this problem.
The other aspect of talking on a cell phone is that the other person can't see what is going on around you. If someone is in a car with you, they can see that traffic has come to a screeching halt, or that someone has cut you off, or whatever the case may be and they can appropriately shut up or say something - fully understanding that you need to focus. The same doesn't happen on the cell phone.
Now, don't get me wrong - I want the government to be hands off. I especially dislike it when they try to solve problems with technology that are better solved through other means. And, other /. posts have pointed out the various areas where there could be problems with having this type of system in place. But, it is very far from the truth to say that bluetooth is a "better alternative."
As others have pointed out, the real solution is using common sense and actually following it.
Good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
We should ban passengers in cars because passengers can distract drivers.
We should ban putting items on the car seat because if you stop sharply, the items can move and that would distract the driver.
We should ban car horns because someone blowing a horn can distract other drivers.
We should ban sirens on emergency vehicles because the sirens would distract drivers from the road in front of them.
We should ban dihydrogenmonoxide because it can distract drivers when it spills inside the car, when it gets splashed on cars, etc. (I'm ignoring that it is a major component of acid raid and that it is found in a high percentage of cancer cells.)
This about the police, not accidents... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine every car has a scrambler, but by default is turned off. The only time it's activated is when the police send a signal, and of course they would only do that when they see someone driving recklessly, or there is a lot of traffic congestion requiring better attention from drivers, or...
Until the police figure out that by killing cell phones they also prevent most people from recording their illegal behavior, and it's back to the days of cops murdering people with impunity.
Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
After the accident I am trapped in my car and can't call for assistance. Really hurts when black ice happens and I slide down the embankment. I'll slowly die without phone service.
I park next to an emergency services vehicle and kill his cell call back to the station. Some smaller jurisdictions rely on mobile phones.
My little girl is trapped in the car trunk of her kidnapper. She can't phone out
Just saying this needs to be well thought out...
Re:Remember that name. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I want to get run over by a 16 year old girl who is talking on the phone while chewing bubblegum and paying attention to her friends in her dads hummer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Driving shouldn't be for the public (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly can't tell if this is flamebait or if you lead a rediculously sheltered life in a big city. I live in a fairly big city (Charlotte), and your idea is so rediculously financially infeasable even for the population density of the 20th biggest city in the US. It would cost literally TRILLIONS to implement something like that for the eastern seaboard alone, and you haven't even taken into account the 10 pp/sq mile that exists over a large portion of middle US.
I'm all for ideas, but some sense of realism and rational thought must go into them. The world isn't black and white and isn't one-size-fits-all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[Citation Needed]
According to wikipedia, the interstate highway system [wikipedia.org] cost $114 billion over 35 years, or $425 billion after adjusting for inflation. Admittedly, there are a lot of state highways that aren't a part of the interstate highway system, but it's a long way from $425 billion to multiple trillions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a public transportation system that eliminates the personal automobile
So a public transportation system that runs on my time-table, goes to precisely where I want it to, in any weather, waits for me, allows me to carry and store several hundred pounds of stuff, is a platform for my HAM radio gear, that doesn't mind me carrying firearms or animal carcasses?
Good luck there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But TVs are OK?! (Score:5, Funny)
That is just what we need, someone trying to drift around a curve while watching tv.