- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,541
- Reaction score
- 1,683
Dogs on an airplane
Dogs in Home Depot
Dogs in the grocery store
Dogs in Home Depot
Dogs in the grocery store
sad trombones
Should have thought of this far earlier:
I would BAN dictatorships.
(never mind the logic flaw inherent in that )
That is an interesting problem to address using technology, so I just did a little research.I’d make it so drivers couldn’t use phones while driving in any capacity. I don’t care if it’s hands free or not because it means drivers not paying attention.
With apologies to Hoyt Axton & Three Dog Night.
If I were the king of the world
Tell you what I'd do
I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war
Make sweet love to you
Sing it now
That is an interesting problem to address using technology, so I just did a little research.
Apple is wanting to use a system that uses scenery analysis and motion sensing in the phone to avoid vehicle hardware, but I can think of a possible easy workaround to defeat that - cover the cameras. Another system costing about $150 mounts on the windshield under the rear view mirror, but uses an app that anyone could disable, perhaps easily or with the help of software designed by hackers to do that.
Many modern cars allow Bluetooth connection of the phone to the car's audio system using a vehicle mounted microphone for the transmit side. The phone conversation is fully hands off which is better, but still not perfect, perfect being NO phone use allowed by the driver while moving. The prohibition of phone use while the vehicle is moving could easily be done by muting the Bluetooth link, but that wouldn't be a very good marketing move since it wouldn't make any sense. It would effectively be nearly the same as using the phone manually since the driver's hands are free while stopped.
I think a cheaper solution which should be mandated for all cars, also outlawing hands free phone systems, would be to use a Bluetooth Near Field Communication (NFC) chip implementing the newer ISO 15693 standard which offers a maximum range of about 3 feet instead the usual NFC range of inches. The range could easily be reduced to, say, 2 feet to avoid disabling the phones of passengers. That chip would be placed in the steering wheel column and would transmit whenever the vehicle was moving. The phone's Bluetooth would pick that up and a mandated capability of the phone's firmware, NOT an app, would disable the phone. Of course, this would all need to be required by regulation or few would buy the vehicles and phones so equipped.
Although I dislike regulation when it serves little or no purpose as it often does, this sort of regulation definitely would serve a purpose since it is of the kind that, unlike seat belt laws for instance, protects ME from stupid drivers who don't think driving a multi-ton vehicle at speed is job #1. That's something that seat belt laws do not do. They only attempt to protect fools who wouldn't wear seat belts voluntarily from themselves. Since seat belt laws most likely exist because of the insurance lobby, maybe they can pull of this cell phone disabling stuff, too. Unfortunately, I think the cell phone hardware and service providers have even richer lobbies, so I'm not holding my breath.
Sure, rare situations can result in negative consequences from legislation that has otherwise positive results that vastly outweigh the negative ones. She should pull over in a public place, even illegally parking right in front of the entrance with her drivers side door toward it so she can dash inside. Far more likely than your scenario, I wonder how many people have burned to death because they couldn't get their seat belts off because vehicle deformation had pinched it, made the latch inaccessible, or they were too dazed and tried to get out without disconnecting it.The problem with implementing this sort of technological solution is that it could potentially disable the ability to make and emergency call. As a parent, we have taught our children to never use cell phone while driving but I WANT my daughter to be able to call for help if some creepy guy is following her.
I was only thinking that the phone could be disabled with the exception of allowing 911 calls.Sure, rare situations can result in negative consequences from legislation that has otherwise positive results that vastly outweigh the negative ones. She should pull over in a public place, even illegally parking right in front of the entrance with her drivers side door toward it so she can dash inside. Far more likely than your scenario, I wonder how many people have burned to death because they couldn't get their seat belts off because vehicle deformation had pinched it, made the latch inaccessible, or they were too dazed and tried to get out without disconnecting it.
Second thought: why is talking to a hands-free phone more distracting than talking to a passenger in the seat next to you? Especially if you're in the habit of turning to face the passenger while you talk, whereas you're less likely to turn to face the phone.
NFS Bluetooth RX is extremely low power, so it could be mandated to be on at all times and could not be turned off.First thought: wouldn't a phone-disabling system which relies on a Bluetooth link be easily defeated by switching off Bluetooth?
Perhaps only texting would be disabled then.Second thought: why is talking to a hands-free phone more distracting than talking to a passenger in the seat next to you? Especially if you're in the habit of turning to face the passenger while you talk, whereas you're less likely to turn to face the phone.
I'll agree to support you if the swap of "then" and "than" is also severely punished.Third thought: back to thinking of light-hearted bans. I support the ban on apostrophe abuse, another example being "it's" versus "its". The former does not mean "belonging to it". The penalty for a first offence is to be made to search Youtube for "Apostrophe Song" and listen to the first thing which shows up. The penalty for further offences is to listen to all the other hits.
Texting only would be best to disable. Voice could still be used.I was only thinking that the phone could be disabled with the exception of allowing 911 calls.
Thanks. I thought I read something somewhere about that. So, final verdict, disable driver voice calls other than 911 and disable text. Now, how do we deal with the extremely distracting passenger cell phone conversations?There's a summary of a study from 2008 here: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/chatty-driving-phones-vs-passengers/ Basically, their contention was that when talking to someone in the car, the passenger will stop talking if driving conditions change and can sometimes alert you to things you missed.
A more recent study reviewed here: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/03/0...passengers-both-lead-distracted-driving-12663 says that talking to someone in the car is distracting but not as much as talking on a cell phone. Interestingly, this one says that there is very little difference between hands-free and hand-held phone conversations, at least as far as distraction is concerned.
Just based off of who I see either nearly running me over or actually running me over when I'm on my motorcycle. Not saying all do this but it's absolutely amazing how many people that pull out in front of me and freeze solid are older. I was in a head on collision just a few months back and it was an older couple that said both that they didn't see me and that they thought they had right of way. Neither of which explains why they stopped dead in the middle of the road in front of me instead of completing their turn. Also the state of Utah's drivers exam is an OPEN BOOK exam, meaning everyone passes.
Thinking it over more, I'd replace state to state requirements with a federal minimum standard for operating a motor vehicle that would be more akin to the process CDL drivers go through to maintain their license. This is for everyone not just the older. Annual physical by your doctor, including eyesight requirements, mental acuity requirements(those with sleep apnea couldn't drive without proving they use their machine etc) as well as a much more in depth course for operating a motor vehicle with a proctored exam. This would apply for any motor vehicle of any power/size operated on public roadways.
Enter your email address to join: