patrick.net

I can't tell you how often I have to evade an errant driver, and it is a woman on a handheld cell phone who proceeds to yell at ME.

This is one instance where you really wouldn't want the police grabbing your phone after a traffic altercation and trying to dictate if you were sending a text or not.
What if I started a text earlier in the day, and did not send it, but then get in an accident later, and the cop rummages through my texts and sees that I have text still on the screen in compose mode?

He will wrongfully assume I was creating the text at the time I crashed.

I would rather have a system, where motorist can look over see someone texting, pull them out of the car and kick the shit out of them, until they piss blood for a week.

I know that sounds harsh, but why should the rest of us, have to live a society where the police can make illegal search and seizures because people can't wait 20 damn minutes to update their Facebook profile?

Smart phones have GPS and can tell how fast they are moving relative to the ground. The federal government should just require that all such phones shut themselves down while they are moving faster than 5 mph.

If the government can record every movement of every mobile phone, they can get their butt-buddies in the telecommunication industry to implement this in all new phones.

I know like my Mazda CX-9 the first time I tried to connect my Bluetooth phone, my wife was driving. I tried and tried and could not get the damn thing to connect. No warning, no instructions as to what I was doing wrong, just "Could not connect" message.

I later found out that you can not initiate a new BT connection while the car is in motion.

Why the hell not? And more importantly why not have a warning on the screen tell you so, it's only a 7 inch lcd hidef screen?

Had I been driving at the time, I could have killed someone for the amount of time my eyes were fixated on solving the unsolvable issue. But why in the hell would you make it impossible to connect hands free to your car stereo? It would seem to me that's the whole point of Bluetooth. What if you pick up a passenger for a road trip and he's never connected his phone to your car before, but has a righteous music collection on his phone? You have to pull over and stop?

I'm often disappointed when I go to my phone to try to figure out when I performed some task on my smart phone. Unlike a computer file in windows explorer, the time stamp is not always available, accessible or even created.
I wish there was a journal built into smartphones that will give you the time and duration of ever task you performed on your smart phone.

Dan8267 says

Smart phones have GPS and can tell how fast they are moving relative to the ground. The federal government should just require that all such phones shut themselves down while they are moving faster than 5 mph.

If the government can record every movement of every mobile phone, they can get their butt-buddies in the telecommunication industry to implement this in all new phones.

So passengers on buses, trains, and cars would also have non-functioning phones while in transit? Besides, how many drivers wait for a red light to do their texting/surfing? Wouldn't your solution cause even more jam ups at lights? How slow do you actually want traffic to move?

The solution here is not regulatory. If regulations made people behave, we wouldn't have a quarter of the population smoking weed, and 1:220 drivers driving drunk.
The solution is technological. Make voice to text better, easier to use on phones, promote the shit outta it! Make Bluetooth tech even more ubiquitous and high functioning. Keeping hands free and eyes up front is going to win the war. Punishing rule breakers won't even win a battle.

Quigley says

Punishing rule breakers won't even win a battle.

I just want to kick the dog shit out of them. Punishment is for wussies!

Quigley says

Wouldn't your solution cause even more jam ups at lights?

No.

Quigley says

The solution here is not regulatory. If regulations made people behave, we wouldn't have a quarter of the population smoking weed, and 1:220 drivers driving drunk.

"Regulations" is just another world for "laws". Calling a law a regulation doesn't automatically make it bad. There are regulations against theft, murder, and rape. Would you remove those regulations?

Building an automatic off switch into mobile phones is easily implemented in the OS itself and can be done by the telecom providers with very little effort and no business disruption.

And doing so would save many, many lives.

NPR had a piece on smart phone/car marriage safety concerns.
They had some guy on, who did a study and rated the distraction factor from 1 to 5.

1 being a lone driver in a car with out so much as a radio.
He said amazingly someone listening to the radio, the distraction factor doesn't seem to move. We can do that well he says.

Though I don't think he factored in powering the radio, finding a station, adjusting the volume, pan or tone controls.

But I'd agree that just listening to the radio while you drive is not that big of a distraction.

He then said, that talking on a cell phone, the factor only goes to two. Whether we're holding the pone or using some hands free method. So we're doing OK just not as well.

Then goes onto but when you start using voice to text applications,
where you focus on what digital voice is reading back to you, the level goes up to 3 to 4 in some cases.

Texting is a 5, the same as putting on make up while eating a whopper.

Enjoy Your Hope and Change says

Dan8267 says

Building an automatic off switch into mobile phones is easily implemented in the OS itself

I don't see how you can implement an automatic switch capable of distinguishing a driver from a passenger (without some additional equipment installed it the car, that is).

You don't. The passenger doesn't get to text either. That's hardly too great a cost to save lives.

Alternatively, we could just get rid of cars altogether and replace them with personal maglift vehicles driven by a smart highway system like I've proposed many times. Doing that solves a great number of economic, health, safety, political, military, diplomatic, and national security problems. But god forbid Americans actually give up their cars for a superior technology.

Cell phones don't cause wrecks. People cause wrecks. Keep your gummit hands off our cell phones! Arrest the criminals that cause wrecks, not us drivers who can responsibly text while driving and not crash...

(Seemed like a logical place to extend the same argument gun rights advocates use when talking about any gun regulation).

Dan said, ""Regulations" is just another world for "laws". Calling a law a regulation doesn't automatically make it bad. There are regulations against theft, murder, and rape. Would you remove those regulations?"

Congratulations on your purchase of a dictionary. I'm glad I was able to enrich your word power with my use of alternative words that stand in for "laws." However you neatly dodged my primary point, only reluctantly acknowledging it when another poster reiterated the position.
And even your attempted refutation (another word for your enrichment) was clumsy and contradictatory of various points about personal liberty you've made in the past. Laws do not equate with morality. It is the responsibility of people who live in a free society to question proposed laws with an eye for both their moral basis and their effect on we the governed.

Your proposal is clearly unworkable, and would be wildly unpopular. Why don't you ban Sleeping medication while you're at it? Misuse of that causes many deaths each year, so clearly we need to regulate it.

If Dan and I just waits long enough all of those opposed to limiting text messages while in motion will have been killed off by texting drivers.

Quigley says

However you neatly dodged my primary point, only reluctantly acknowledging it when another poster reiterated the position.

Correction: Your "point" evidently was clearly expressed. The other poster clearly expressed it, and I always directly address other people's point. If I missed your point, it's your fault for not being clear.

You can accuse me of many things, but only idiots accuse people like me of intellectual dishonesty.

Quigley says

Your proposal is clearly unworkable, and would be wildly unpopular.

If you actually believe my proposal is unworkable, then you have no understanding of technology. As for it being unpopular, that's irrelevant. Desegregation was unpopular. What matters is whether or not it is the right thing to do.

However, I think the number of people who recklessly text while driving are outnumber by multitudes who are pissed off at people almost crashing into them they are while driving their children.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jIUYBNmCrKA
National Safety Council: 28% of car accidents involve talking or texting on cell phones.

Straw Man says

I thought we were talking about realistic solutions, not some wacko nanny-state utopian paradise where everybody wears straightjackets because "if it saves at least one life it's worth it".

About six thousand Americans are killed by people using a mobile phone while driving including texting. That's two 9/11s every single year.

Because of 9/11 everybody is stripped search through rape scanners and sexually molested by the TSA when boarding an airplane. That's a fucking nanny state.

Preventing two 9/11s every year by having mobile phones shut off when they are moving is not an infringement of your rights. Being rape-scanned is. Being subject to indefinite detainment with out Habeas Corpus or charges or access to a lawyer is. Americans need to sort their fucking priorities.

Call it Crazy says

Gee, what a great idea!!! I read EVERY day that passengers are killing people with cars... I'm so glad you picked up on this must-have law that should be passed...

Some form of mass transportation system is necessary for our society to function, whether it be automobiles or maglifts. Texting while driving is not necessary. So your analogy is false.

A better comparison would be to airline security. Twice as many people die each year from driving while using mobile communication devices than died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks which happened only once. The proper conclusion to reach is that we should mandate the cutoff switch to mobile devices I proposed and we should completely disband airline security (rape scanners, the TSA, no-fly lists, etc.) Hell, a lock on the cabin door and a guarantee that passengers would not be criminally prosecuted for taking down terrorists and hijackers are all that was necessary to prevent 9/11.

Straw Man says

Don't forget these pesky passengers on trains and buses - can't have them texting either. "If it saves on life" and all that...

And if it saves 6000 lives a year? What exactly is your number?

More American lives would be saved in a single year by my proposal, which costs next to nothing to implement, than have been saved by the $1.28 Trillion spent on the War on Terror. And you claim to be for "small government". Ha.

Arguments that there should be no law preventing texting and driving are imbecilic. The laws are justified for the exact same reason that laws against drunk driving are justified. You do not have the right to harm other people or to endanger other people against their will. Texting while driving is MORE dangerous than drunk driving. Yes, you read that correct: more dangerous.

To argue that people have the right to text while driving is to argue that people have the right to drive drunk. And don't give me that free speech crap. I'm more for free speech than any of you bastards, but free speech is about content, not running someone over while texting. You can express whatever the fuck you want once you pull over.

Call it Crazy says

Well, while you're on the subject, don't forget these either... They should also be outlawed while driving..

"Voice activation of any feature or operation of the car" probably reduces risk, not increases it. The other things you mentioned are illegal under "reckless driving", but it's entirely at the discretion of the police office to enforce these things, so they are very subjective.

My proposal isn't some vague law that people will ignore. My proposal actually prevents the problem unlike prohibiting the behaviors you mentioned. My proposal is to require telecoms to build the kill switch into their mobile OS, and thus does not suffer from non-compliance issues like your disingenuous examples.

But let's get to the heart of the issue. It sounds like you are saying that the government should not have the right to prohibit people from texting while driving. If that is your premise, then have the balls to outright state that and to defend that ground. I'd have more respect for you if you did since I don't have to agree with you to respect you.

If you want to debate whether or not the government should have the authority to prohibit texting while driving -- through what means is irrelevant -- I'm talking about the prohibition itself, then game on man.

You already know my position. It has been proven that mobile communication device usage while driving is far more dangerous than driving while drunk. The government can and does outlaw driving while drunk because people do not have the right to recklessly endanger the lives of others against their will.

If the technology existed that cars could detect whether or not a driver was drunk and refuse to turn on if the driver was, then the government would most certainly be within reason to require car manufacturers to install this device in every new car. By the same logic, the government is within reason to require that mobile devices have an automated kill switch that prevents usage while driving.

Stop making sarcastic remarks and show me where I'm wrong in the above argument. If you do that, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I reserve the right to defend my position until you do.

Dan said, " The government can and does outlaw driving while drunk because people do not have the right to recklessly endanger the lives of others against their will."
And look! No more drunk drivers! Oh wait, the last study I read found that a shocking 1:220 drivers are driving drunk right now.

Even your proposal wouldn't save them. After all, it's fairly easy to disable GPS tracking on a phone. Just a few clicks and a slide for me.

Call it Crazy says

Well, while you're on the subject, don't forget these either... They should also be outlawed while driving..

Eating

Drinking anything

Putting on Make-up

Adjusting and tuning the radio

Driving with your GPS stuck in your direct line of vision

Looking and adjusting your GPS

Talking to other occupants in vehicle

Onstar

Voice activation of any feature or operation of the car

Reading the newspaper

Writing notes or messages

What else did I miss????

If your going for it, go all out for ALL distractions.... just think how many people could be saved!!!

As a matter a fact you can be pulled over and ticketed for operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner.

The thing is, right now cellphones aren't considered unsafe.
But have a book on your steering wheel as you pass by a state trooper and see if you don't get a ticket.

Quigley says

Dan said, " The government can and does outlaw driving while drunk because people do not have the right to recklessly endanger the lives of others against their will."

And look! No more drunk drivers! Oh wait, the last study I read found that a shocking 1:220 drivers are driving drunk right now.

Are you clinically retarded or just trolling?

1. Your implication is that no law should be created because some people will disobey the law. This is so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit a retort.

2. You just aligned yourself with legalizing drunk driving. Do you really think anyone will take you seriously when your position is that the government should not be allowed to make or enforce laws against drunk driving?

3. Your asinine argument doesn't even apply to my proposal since my proposal doesn't rely on customer compliance.

4. You haven't addressed the issue of whether or not the government should have the authority to outlaw drunk driving or texting while driving. That's the fundamental issue we're arguing over and you just pussied out.

Dan8267 says

Stop making sarcastic remarks and show me where I'm wrong in the above argument. If you do that, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you.

Now that Quigley has demonstrated exactly what not to do, perhaps Call it Crazy can take a shot.

Quigley says

Even your proposal wouldn't save them. After all, it's fairly easy to disable GPS tracking on a phone. Just a few clicks and a slide for me.

I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who is technologically challenged.

Just because you can do something in a UI for version N of an OS doesn't mean that version N+1 of the OS's kernel will allow that same operation. I'd let the UI control whether or not apps could use the GPS. This would preserve the functionality of "disabling location tracking by corporations".

However, the OS kernel would still keep track of speed and would disable the device while moving.

I actually work in the biz. If I tell you something is possible with existing technology, you can be damn certain it is. People who don't think technology can accomplish goal X are usually wrong and have no idea just how advance the technology they take for granted really is.

And apple made the first iPhone to work exclusively with the AT&T network. How many weeks was it before the first guy jail broke it? I think you don't understand human nature. Where there is a will there is a way.

My contention isn't that laws should not be made, but that intelligent thought should be used to create a situation where people are not regularly compelled to break this law.
In the case of drunk driving, the solution is to provide mass transit, add more cab service, give people options other than driving themselves home from the bar, or home from the restaurant after that third glass of wine.
Otherwise you have situations like fluorescent lamp disposal laws which require specific disposal due to EPA regulations, yet most cities and counties make this disposal either impossible or extremely difficult. So most people just crunch em up and jam them in the trash bin.

Regulations alone fix nothing, because a significant portion of the population will ignore them. Enforcement of something very unpopular will also backfire. For example traffic ticketing cameras at intersections are constantly tried and constantly fail because people either refuse to pay, or file court appeal after appeal until the violations are thrown out and the system scrapped. Yes maybe some or most of them broke the law, but the way in which the law was enforced makes it so unpopular that people won't stand for it.
This is the same thing with your cell phone proposal. It wouldn't work.

I hope your reading comprehension skills prove adequate for this post.

Quigley says

And apple made the first iPhone to work exclusively with the AT&T network. How many weeks was it before the first guy jail broke it? I think you don't understand human nature. Where there is a will there is a way

I understand human nature, but you do not understand technology. Mobile devices communicate over networks. Detecting a "broken" kill switch would be trivial. You traveled 5 miles in under 10 minutes and the killswitch didn't turn off, so the network immediately bans your account, which is associated with your social security number, and you have to pay a $5000 fine to ever get a telecom account again.

The fact that you think technology can't accomplish things shows how woefully ignorant you are about technology is already doing. Just because you cannot find a solution to a problem, doesn't mean there aren't millions of people smarter than you who can.

Quigley says

In the case of drunk driving, the solution is to

I thought it was to pass another law to reduce the BAL to .05%, that way I can go to jail for $15,000 over a swish of Scope before I leave the house.

Dan8267 says

You traveled 5 miles in under 10 minutes and the killswitch didn't turn off, so
the network immediately bans your account, which is associated with your social
security number, and you have to pay a $5000 fine to ever get a telecom account
again.

Technology is great and can accomplish much, but, Geesh, why we gotta pass *more* laws?? So tired of the state patronizing its people.

Let everybody self-Darwinize if they don't know better. We've regulated so much of our lives away that freedom is now a tarted-up fantasy. We're gonna find out one day, when we've traded everything good we had for Door Number 2, that all that's behind the curtain is a rusty Cadillac full o' chickens.

Philistine said, " all that's behind the curtain is a rusty Cadillac full o' chickens."

Is that what you want, Dan? Chickens? In a rusty old van
DOWN BY THE RIVER???!!!

Dan8267 says

I understand human nature, but you do not understand technology. Mobile devices communicate over networks. Detecting a "broken" kill switch would be trivial. You traveled 5 miles in under 10 minutes and the killswitch didn't turn off, so the network immediately bans your account, which is associated with your social security number, and you have to pay a $5000 fine to ever get a telecom account again.

Something like this is a scary wet dream of a Nazi state. No wonder these ideas are coming from you.

There are several *real* reasons for someone to use a cell phone in the car. It is not longer just a phone. Passing one size fits all laws will only empower your god government officials, no one else. It will not prevent accidents for sure.

The number of car accidents has been dropping year over year, while the number of "distractions" in the car has been increasing.

The problem is people like Dan is that he thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and hence he will come up with a solution that will solve everyone's problem the best possible way.

In reality, humans can adapt to situations quickly. In addition, consumer technology will continue to solve problems, and will make cars safer than before.

Here are stats on car accidents. Remember, cell phone is a very recent invention.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-crash-fatality-statistics-2/
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

The consumer technology will continue to solve problems, and will make cars safer than before. The legislation won't.

In short, blame the bad and careless drivers for the accidents. Don't blame the technology. A bad driver is a bad driver, irrespective of the distraction he/she chooses to be bad. You cannot eliminate all distractions.

We already have hundreds of laws to deal with drivers who are a danger. All it takes is for the police to observe the road instead of just their radar gun. The dangerous texters are those that are swerving all over, missing traffic lights, ignoring signs, driving real slow. It is easy to tell. The cops can pull them over and ticket them for multiple violations already on the books.

Driving has many distractions. Should we make cars only have one seat? I know when I have a hot chick in the passenger seat I like glancing over to her as we are talking. Maybe shut down McDonalds? Too many people grab a Big Mac and then try eating that sloppy thing while driving. Trying to catch that falling secret sauce before it hits your new shirt takes your eyes off the road. Kids? I have seen so many Fathers yelling back at the kids in the backseat. Ban them from being able to be in cars. Considering most kids die in cars, I am surprised that liberals haven't already tried making it a law(or more likely taxing it)....