backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 84 comment(s) - last by Totally.. on Oct 17 at 1:54 AM


  (Source: Red Light Tickets)
Is the new cell phone blocking technology a lifesaver or a gross invasion of privacy

Automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of injury and death in America.  Last year 41,059 people died in traffic accidents.  This has led to extreme measures, such as keys that limit the capabilities of vehicles for teenage drivers, as recently debuted by Ford. 

Meanwhile, cell phones are essential functions in our lives, yet they have been under heavy criticism of late.  From being banned on planes for interfering with transmissions to being blamed for cancer, they've gotten their fair share of bad publicity. 

Perhaps the most salient of the criticism of cell phones is that they are distracting to drivers and have led to an increase in the number of car accidents.  Studies have shown that drivers texting on cell phones are more impaired than those drinking or abusing other drugs.  Also, a recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2006 found that merely dialing or talking on the phone caused 7 percent of accidents and near-crashes were directly caused by cell phones.  While it is clear that this is a problem, many have wondered about a solution to the problem.

One company, Aegis Mobility, a Canadian software company, thinks it has the solution.  The company has invented a new technology called DriveAssistT.  The new system operates in-car and detects when the car is in motion.  It then sends a signal to the wireless carrier telling them to hold incoming calls and text messages.

Callers who call the phone will be presented with a message that the person appears to be driving.  They can press a key to go into an "emergency" mode to directly connect, if necessary.  Otherwise they can just leave a message.

The new tech may see a strong push from many states' lawmakers.  Lawmakers in New York and California have already passed through tough penalties on talking without a hands-free headset -- though as the NHTSA study showed, the physical act of talking causes crashes as well.  Lawmakers in California have also terminated drivers' text-and-drive privileges.

One obstacle to adoption is compatibility.  Aegis Mobility software is currently supported by the industry leading OS, Symbian OS, available on Nokia and Sony Ericsson phones.  It is also supported by Windows Mobile, typically found on smart-phones.  However, there's no current support for OS X (found on the iPhone) or Google's new Android OS.

For phones that support it, the devices operation is deceptively simple, says Dave Hattey, Aegis' CEO.  The device uses the onboard GPS chip found in a large number of modern phones to track the user’s movements.  Past a certain speed the signal is sent.  The phone attempts to use any existing Wi-Fi networks, and in their absence will connect over-the-air.

Aegis is currently working on cutting a deal with a major carrier.  It plans to charge users approximately $10 to $20 a month for its services.  The software will be initially aimed primarily at parents with teen drivers.  They also anticipate corporate customers to add the software to their corporate cell phones.

The driver will have the option to override the new system if they indicate they are a passenger in the car that's driving.  The override will be sent to the company's website, where it can be tracked by parents or employers to make sure their steeds are not lying.

Aegis does have one big deal already -- a partnership with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.  The insurance company will offer its customers 3 percent to 10 percent family plan discounts if they adopt the technology.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Or instead of paying Aegis $10-$20 every month...
By Creig on 10/15/2008 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 5
just buy an electronic cellphone blocker device for $63 http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.11510 and have your local remote starter/car stereo shop wire it to be active only when your car is running. The remote control that comes with it can either stay in the car in case the system needs to be deactivated for a passenger to use their cellphone or a parent can take the remote with them so their teenagers have no choice but to pull over and shut the car off to make a call.

Problem solved. And much cheaper than Aegis is offering.




By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 12:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Except then you're blocking everyone else's cell phone calls within a 100 foot radius. Which I believe is illegal.


By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 12:16:13 PM , Rating: 4
I wouldn't mind several of those being on the ceilings of movie theaters though. With a sign in the window saying cell phone reception is blocked inside.


By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 12:55:21 PM , Rating: 5
So buy one and take it in the theater with u. You think the stupid group of 15 year old girls are going to know u have one? let alone what it is or that it exists?


RE: Or instead of paying Aegis $10-$20 every month...
By Yames on 10/15/08, Rating: -1
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 5:17:57 PM , Rating: 5
Or she could leave the theater and tell someone at the concession stand or box office? I mean I know that involves getting up and stuff but I'm just spouting random ideas here...

And are you seriously worried about your daughter being stalked by some child predator at the movie theater? They rarely try to do anything in such a crowded place. Perhaps the parking lot but not in the theater which is what we were talking about.


By othercents on 10/15/2008 6:12:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Perhaps the parking lot but not in the theater which is what we were talking about.

Confession?


By ggordonliddy on 10/15/2008 6:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's talking about the phone being blocked while driving.


By feraltoad on 10/15/2008 5:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
The range of a personal blocker is quite limited. However, passive cell blocking tech is available, copper filaments "plastered" on the walls, that can be installed in single rooms, a theater for example, to block those pesky calls for help while the movie plays. Welcome to the deadzone.

People often say, "What about an emergency if I'm in the movies and my calls are blocked?". I usually think that someone with such a precarious life should probably not be taking in movies, and the lives of horrible apprehension and fear those before cell phones must have lived. Movie theaters could have a screen on the back of the headrest, like airlines, that could offer an option to alert you to an emergency call if you forward your messages to the theater number. Then we could pay $40 a ticket, won't that be nice! Plus, I don't think you could make it tough enough so those little POS punks that hang out at places like theaters & malls couldn't destroy it.


By othercents on 10/15/2008 6:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People often say, "What about an emergency if I'm in the movies and my calls are blocked?".

I wonder what we ever did in theaters without cell phones. Did more people just die because they couldn't call someone? What ever happened to 911? Do we not teach people how to dial that number? Really, is your parents going to be able to fix every problem you might deem as an emergency?

If you are not dead or dieing, don't call me. If you are dead or dieing call 911 for quicker assistance.

Other


By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 8:41:09 PM , Rating: 4
first and foremost, im not sure who's going to try to assault someone during the middle of a movie. Secondly, u are wayyyy to overprotective from the sounds of it. Its not like there's a sex predator around every corner. And like mentioned, there are such things as phones that aren't cell phones. Every movie theater will have some sort of land line, pay phone, and if its really an emergency, you can ask the person at the counter to do something. Problem solved.


RE: Or instead of paying Aegis $10-$20 every month...
By techone on 10/15/08, Rating: -1
By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 9:20:19 PM , Rating: 4
You are just a worrysome ignorant person who things around every corner is someone with bad intentions. Stop worrying about everything and everyone and you'll find that your life will be much happier and with less stress. If you want to protect your son/daughter/wife, make sure they are responsible and do the right things.

"WE HAVE TO TRACK THEM..."
We track them because it is something that is important to do, not because there are a lot of them.

"You think that each theatre of each movie that is playing is packed with people?"

No i don't, but what are the chances of your intended scenario happening. Firstly, your daughter has to want to go see the movie. Secondly, someone else does. Thirdly, that other person, out of every possible person, has to be a sex offender. Oh and btw, you don't get to check how packed a theater is until AFTER you buy the ticket AND wait for the movie to start. Also, if there's more than those two people in there, guess what won't happen? If the sex offender is stupid enough to do this kind of thing in a situation with someone else around, we're talking about a whole other teeny tiny subsection of people out of the larger group of sex offenders.

Yes, it CAN happen. WILL it? The chances are overwhelmingly against it happening specifically to your daughter. If something has happened in your lifetime to someone you care about, I'm sorry to hear that, but you have to look at the facts, that it was an extremely rare occurrence to begin with, it almost certainly won't happen again.


By Generic Guy on 10/16/2008 8:37:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
there are more sex offenders amongst us each day.


The problem is that many (perhaps most) of these "sex" offenders are really just bar drunks who got picked up for whizzing in the alley beside the building. Or people who are convicted of any crime involving any minor -- automatic "sex" offender in some states. Or teenage school couples where one or the other is nearing so-called age of consent (in past ages this was about 14-15, as define by God's design or mother nature or what have you). They're not the type to stalk your kids behind the school, but once on one of these lists it can ruin their lives.

Many people are being painted with a wide brush which should be reserved for only the worst of the worst. And paranoid idiots like yourself only feed into this nonsense.

Getting way off topic from cell phones, sorry. Um... Cell phones are a behavioral, etiquette problem, not a legislative problem.


By Kary on 10/16/2008 4:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
...ok, in a real emergency like that there is a much better alternative to cell phones (he could just knock it out of her hand) or driving somewhere else (if he isn't going to stop her from leaving is he really that much of a threat?)

HAVE HER YELL!!!

As others have stated, I do feel bad if something along these lines has happened to someone in your life.

On the other hand, please think through the situations instead of worrying about them or depending on technology to save you. Sometimes the simplest and lowest tech solutions are also the best solution.

Besides, people who use cell phones in theaters are rude and, although I have to admit I have considered using my solution for that problem, yelling during a movie would just be that much worse.


By Hare on 10/16/2008 1:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
People need to put their phones to silent mode. There may be fresh parents going to the movies and want to be informed if they are needed back home so blocking all calls is not a good idea. Just put the phone to silent or vibration and it won't bother anyone.

Of course there are idiots who just don't understand so maybe there should be a ticketing system. A ringing phone should cost maybe 50$. That should teach them...

I think this is also a cultural thing. I have never ever heard a telephone ringing/beeping in the movies.


RE: Or instead of paying Aegis $10-$20 every month...
By walk2k on 10/15/2008 2:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
They do this in Europe actually, but interfering with communiction is illegal in the US.


By omnicronx on 10/15/2008 3:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
Its illegal, but you can still get past it. It is also illegal in Canada, but my school opted to put an extra layer of lead in the roof so that you can only get a signal if you are directly beside a window.


By Etsp on 10/15/2008 5:19:28 PM , Rating: 3
That's not illegal anywhere. That is not actively jamming a signal, that is passively blocking signals from getting through. If you are not within the intended affected area, it will have no affect on your signal, whereas a jamming device will still affect you if you're simply close to the intended area.


By ggordonliddy on 10/15/2008 6:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
How will lead in the ceiling have any effect on someone?


By feraltoad on 10/15/2008 10:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you'd try to say that you have to inhale Asbestos fibers to develop mesothelioma. That would be the same argument as saying coal miners that are never exposed to coal dust won't develop black lung. Well I got news for you: I think I got the black lung, Pop.


RE: Or instead of paying Aegis $10-$20 every month...
By ZmaxDP on 10/15/2008 6:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that lead is only dangerous if ingested or inhaled. Fortunately, lead is not known to off-gas, and while it is known to slowly dissolve in water I don't know many people who try and drink the water leaking from a roof. (though with teenagers anything is possible...)


By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 8:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
He was clearly too busy drinking the lead based water from his school's leaky ceiling.


By feraltoad on 10/15/2008 11:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I only drink wine from my antique pewter flagon. However, this "lead based water" you speak of intrigues me.


RE: Or instead of paying Aegis $10-$20 every month...
By Creig on 10/15/2008 12:23:45 PM , Rating: 5
Even better. The overall affected radius is going to be less than 100' since the metal of the car will reduce its signal strength. So most likely you might get 20' to 30' radius outside the car.

Now, not only are you now safer because you aren't on your cellphone while driving, the idiot bouncing from one side of his lane to the other because he can't talk and drive at the same time will be forced to concentrate on his driving since you'll be temporarily blocking him as well.

Win-win. :)


By spread on 10/15/2008 12:34:35 PM , Rating: 3
Sold!

I'm getting one.


By chiadog on 10/16/2008 5:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about this. The idiots will probably forget the road and look at their phone to see why it is not talking to them ;)


By walk2k on 10/15/2008 3:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it's a felony actually.

Not to mention it's probably more dangerous to have people looking at their phone wondering why they got cut off and trying to redial etc... than to just let them talk.


By MrPoletski on 10/15/2008 1:01:15 PM , Rating: 1
what are the bets on what that text message he is reading says? :-)

Has he just got his mortgage repayment quote in or something?


By chris2618 on 10/15/2008 2:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
If i am not mistaken it is illegal to jam phone signals and i think it is a big fine as well if you get caught.


By NullSubroutine on 10/15/2008 9:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Except you would need a FCC license and you could kill someone by blocking 911 or emergency calls.

You would kill more people than prevent with such a law or technology.


By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 9:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
See there's the thing, we don't know that. First of all, if you're blocking a call to 911 from an accident for example, you were either in the accident, or you are at the scene, and would be able to turn it off. Also, if everyone's calls got blocked by driving, there would be less distraction and less accidents, therefore, for every person who died because nobody could call 911, there may be 10 fewer accidents (random number thrown out there). Fewer accidents also gives a less chance of people dying in the crash as well, so potentially it COULD save lives, if everyone embraced the technology.

Now of course there are far deeper scenarios, and i'm not trying to say either of us are right or wrong - not trying to argue. A number of things can happen, but i'm just throwing this out there as 'A' possible outcome.


By NullSubroutine on 10/16/2008 12:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
Or the person in the accident is dead or unconscious and the illegal devise keeps running and noone can call 911 to save other people there. You don't have the right to block other people's communication, regardless if it is routine calls or emergency calls. And you still would have to have an FCC license as anything that is 'jamming' the signal requires you to broadcast on that signal. I don't think the FCC would take kindly to this idea.


Curious about this discount.
By Chris Peredun on 10/15/2008 11:43:24 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Aegis does have one big deal already -- a partnership with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. The insurance company will offer its customers 3 percent to 10 percent family plan discounts if they adopt the technology.


I don't have a cell phone.

Since I clearly won't be using one while driving, can I still get this discount?




RE: Curious about this discount.
By icrf on 10/15/2008 11:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously? I thought I was the only one left.


RE: Curious about this discount.
By Spivonious on 10/15/2008 12:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
I gave mine up a few years ago. It's so nice to not be instantly available.


RE: Curious about this discount.
By FITCamaro on 10/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Curious about this discount.
By amanojaku on 10/15/2008 12:26:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
People are bad enough drivers without distractions. Adding a cell phone in, especially with teenagers, only makes them worse.
I've seen people walk into traffic while on a cell. For some reason Darwinism hasn't caught up with them, yet. I guess that's proof there is a God... A cell phone God. That's probably where all my taxes and fees are going!


RE: Curious about this discount.
By sprockkets on 10/15/2008 6:28:18 PM , Rating: 4
LOL

"If natural selection works so well, why do we still have stupid people?"

Well, someone has to be the sucker to support all the smart people making money off them; maybe that is why they are still here.

Now if only they would not buy computers, use the internet, or as The Daily Show last week showed, vote.


RE: Curious about this discount.
By UppityMatt on 10/15/08, Rating: -1
Better idea
By tastyratz on 10/15/2008 2:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
How about a device built into new cars that acts as a bluetooth intermediary? No phone calls can take place in a vehicle traveling over 20mph unless they:
A: use the onboard bluetooth hands free built into the car
B: pair with the car as if it was the headset... then pair the car with your headset/hands free if you want to use your own.

Talking on a hands free is no more dangerous than talking to a passenger. Are they going to ban carpooling next? How about some scary statistics?
Statistics repeatedly prove that in high speed accidents a car full of people have a higher fatality rate.

I do have to say though that productive or not absolutely text messaging should be blocked from taking place in a moving vehicle.
Talking on a phone is distracting but you keep your eyes on the road. I see people sending texts when driving and THAT is just absolutely absurd and has nearly no legitimate reason to be needed in a moving vehicle. Call them on your hands free or wait to text, you have other options of communication if you need them.




RE: Better idea
By GeorgeH on 10/15/2008 4:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a plan. Once we're done with that, let's put a GPS governor on the car to make sure that people can't speed. After that, let's put in a radar system that automatically slows down a car that is following another too closely. When that's finished, let's put in retinal scanners to make sure that drivers are alert before we let them turn on their cars.

I like to think that I'm not a tinfoil hat "1984" lunatic, but where's the line? At what point do we let morons be morons, and let intelligent people have the freedom to decide what is and is not "safe"? Personally, I'd rather have a few morons driving around than have a bunch of nanny devices telling me that I can't do something because it has been deemed statistically unsafe.


RE: Better idea
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 5:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather remove all the safety devices from cars so the morons got killed in accidents like they used to instead of being allowed to continue breeding.


RE: Better idea
By ZmaxDP on 10/15/2008 6:29:07 PM , Rating: 3
Great idea - until a moron runs into you. Cars aren't just dangerous for the driver, this is the problem. Duh.


RE: Better idea
By sprockkets on 10/15/2008 6:37:38 PM , Rating: 5
and the worst part is, the drunk driver usually survives while killing the innocent victim due to the way most accidents happen.


RE: Better idea
By wjobs55 on 10/16/2008 2:54:07 AM , Rating: 1
There is. It's called a WAR.


RE: Better idea
By frobizzle on 10/16/2008 9:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hey! Here's a novel idea! How about the cops simply start enforcing the law??? I know it would mean cutting down on their time at the doughnut shop but hey, maybe the sacrafice would be worth it!


Are they seriously doing something so silly?
By Belegost on 10/15/2008 11:50:00 AM , Rating: 3
"The device uses the onboard GPS chip found in a large number of modern phones to track the user’s movements. Past a certain speed the signal is sent."

So anyone moving too fast will have their calls intercepted? That's the most ridiculous plan I could think of.
What about the passengers in the car, there's no danger in them talking on the cell phone.

I commute by train a couple times a month for work, and I choose not to drive mainly for the ability to be productive during that time. However with this system my calls would be blocked.

I'm sorry but the way the report says it will be implemented inconveniences many people for no good reason.




By JediJeb on 10/15/2008 12:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
The driver will have the option to override the new system if they indicate they are a passenger in the car that's driving

That should cover you on a train.


By ebakke on 10/15/2008 1:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new system operates in-car and detects when the car is in motion.
I read it to be something that's installed in your car, not installed on your phone. Or rather, that both must be present. So in order for you to be inconvenienced, the company operating that train has to install it in the train as well. Which just doesn't make sense, or seem likely.


By Kary on 10/16/2008 5:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the inconvenience of paying $10 to $20 a month for a service I don't need because I already know better (and don't have a cell phone) seems pretty overwhelming to me. :)


you dont HAVE to answer the phone
By kattanna on 10/15/2008 11:54:08 AM , Rating: 1
just because the phone rings, doesnt mean you HAVE to answer it.

my phone is for MY Convenience, not YOURS.




RE: you dont HAVE to answer the phone
By mkrech on 10/15/2008 4:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely... and, if you are using it for your convenience, use it safely. It's your responsibility to be safe when you drive. Even if others don't help, your the one at the wheel. You have to be responsible for your own safety and for not putting those around you at risk because of your actions.

That said, it is still very sad to here stories like this one:
"A scream, then nothing"
http://www.startribune.com/local/31010209.html?elr...


By 3DoubleD on 10/15/2008 4:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. It is up to every person on the road to drive responsibly. We can pass as many laws as we would like, but the only thing keep everyone on the road safe are the people driving on it. This means eliminating distractions such as cell phones (by turning them off all on your own, it isn't that hard) if you can't afford to be distracted.

That story is very unfortunate, but I would argue that blaming cell phone use in the case is far fetched at best. Talking on a cell phone isn't the cause of the accident, but it could possibly contribute. The cause was whatever sent that poor girl into the ditch (complicated by her slower reaction time or lack of attention). What caused death was that she was ejected from the vehicle, which leads one to believe her seatbelt was not used properly. With the lack of detail in that article it is difficult to say whether or not the cell phone contributed significantly to the accident.


RE: you dont HAVE to answer the phone
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 5:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
Res.....respon.....responsssssiibility? What is this mythical idea you speak of?


RE: you dont HAVE to answer the phone
By mkrech on 10/16/2008 12:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hehehe... I do enjoy your posts FITCamaro. Unfortunately, the sarcasm is appropriate.

However, fortunately for me, my parents believed in teaching me the mythology of responsibility and I am passing that knowledge on to my child. Now I just need to find that mythical land where I can live with others who also believe in the mythology of responsibility.


By HostileEffect on 10/15/2008 3:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
One day, I hope to build a truck that does not have any computer chips, with the exception of a CB radio, just in case I or someone else needs help.

Telling other people where, when, and how to use their own property got old a long time ago. Yes, there is risk in talking on a cell phone and trying to drive at the same time. I would rather people have the freedom to use their own property and I live with the risks that come with that, than to have an outside entity dictating where, when, and how, one can use what is theirs, even in the name of saving lives.
Use common sense though, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

That is my opinion.




By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 3:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
One problem. They already built then. What computer chips do you think trucks in the 20s,30s,40s,50s,60s, and 70s had?

My 87 Camaro had two computer chips. The ECU and the radio. My 85 and 89 just had the radio.


By HostileEffect on 10/15/2008 3:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect that vehicles from the 1970s and prior, would be mechanical for the most part, perhaps something controlling some engine functions, though I have no knowledge of that.
An older vehicle is unlikely to have the level of digital as a more modern vehicle, yes?

I might have shot my mouth off too soon when I said no chips at all, minimalist, would be more accurate. If there are things that I don't need, or want inside a vehicle, and I can take them out without making the vehicle inoperable, I'll probably take it all out.


By foolsgambit11 on 10/16/2008 6:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Integrated Circuits weren't developed until the late 50's, and weren't available to the public in any significant quantity until about the mid-60's, so I'd say a mid-60's car would be safe. But just to be sure, get a Model T. Or just build your own locomotion machine, hewn from hardwood and wrought-iron. Or maybe a horse-drawn buggy. Move in with the Amish. That'll keep you safe from this pesky technology.

Or you could go around destroying textile looms. King Ludd for President!


simpler solution
By Totally on 10/15/2008 6:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
since most/all phones now have gps, whenever someone landspeed exceed pedestrian speed (x miles/km per hr) cut off all service except 911.




RE: simpler solution
By Segerstein on 10/16/2008 1:20:43 AM , Rating: 2
You really are clueless.
GPS soaks your battery in couple of hours. Besides, if you don't use GPRS based A-GPS, you need up to a three minutes of good outdoor satellite coverage to get the initial position.

What about other passengers in the car??? Or use of GPRS for traffic and weather info by the GPS navigation, or streaming internet radio?


RE: simpler solution
By Totally on 10/17/2008 1:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry for throwing an idea out there, i did realize it wouldn't work for a passenger situation, plane, train, public trans whatever may it be. traffic, weather info, internet radio, gps why should someone be accessing that information from a cell phone?


Don't like this
By Bateluer on 10/15/2008 11:57:23 AM , Rating: 1
While I oppose cell phones when driving, I don't want a third party telling me whether or not I can or cannot use my phone when or if I need to.

Government and corporations have enough control in our lives.




RE: Don't like this
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 12:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
So don't pay for the service. It's not like this is being built into the phone without you having a choice.


RE: Don't like this
By InvertMe on 10/15/2008 12:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
This is no differnt than having to follow the speed limit, wear your seatbelt or any other requirements of driving. I am amazed that no cells while driving isn't a federal law yet. I am sure it will be someday.


This will be intresting...
By tdktank59 on 10/15/2008 11:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
The mere fact that it will cost money will mean it will only be purchased by those who feel there kid/employees need the protection.

None the less the fact that it has an override function will just put a minor annoyance in the way.

For this to really take off which I could care less or not... I try and stay off the phone while driving anyways. It needs to be standard, included with the car/phone not an optional package.

However the fact that they are marketing it towards parents with teens means they are not aiming for mass adoption by the populous.




RE: This will be intresting...
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 12:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they'll offer it with either the ability to turn it off not present or requiring a password to do so.


Any blocking would be a good start
By Beenthere on 10/15/2008 4:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Any blocking of cellphone reception in a moving vehicle would be a good start. Maybe after that they could develop a proper driver's education program in the U.S. Then they could delete all drivers licenses and start over with safety and driving skills in mind. Of course this means people will not be able to buy a driver's license at Wally World or Walfart, but that's a good thing.

They should also fine any cellphone provider say $100K per call for any telecommunication with a moving vehicle. We want to give the cellphone companies an opportunity to "do the right thing" by cutting the signal before someone kills or injures another person. I know it's hard to imagine but people actually use to (try to) drive without talking on the phone while driving.




By rhangman on 10/15/2008 11:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Personally if I am driving, I just let my phone ring out. I drive a manual and I drive hard, so there really isn't a choice. People talking on phones are just selfish; if we all did it then there would be far more accidents, since the people who are currently paying attention wouldn't be.

You also have to remember that it isn't just accidents. Talking/texting on phones also creates congestion (there have been studies). So we would all get to where we are going faster (on average, obviously not all the time) if people got off their mobile phones whilst driving.


By chris2618 on 10/15/2008 1:53:53 PM , Rating: 3
Me and my dad thought of that idea about 2 years ago but instead of having this signal sent and GPS.
You just have a device connected to the hand break or the selector in automatics which connects with the phone with Blue tooth. If the hand break is disengaged (moved from park) and someone calls you get an option leave message or emergency call. if the emergency call is picked a certain tones rings then you have to pull over engage the hand break(move to park) before answering.




By 3DoubleD on 10/15/2008 3:04:23 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not convinced that talking on a cell phone is any different than talking to people in the car driving with you. You could argue that holding a cell phone requires the use of a hand, but how many people drive with both hands on the wheel all of the time? I'll be honest, I sure don't. Surely if the situations requires extra diligence and control you will find both of my hands on the wheel, but for normal driving (not crazy rush-hour city driving or residential driving) two hands is not absolutely necessary. If you are a good driving and know when you need to have a heightened sense of awareness, talking on your cell phone while driving should be as safe as talking to someone in your car.

Texting/emailing/web browsing/GPS should only be handled when the car is stopped, I absolutely agree with this. I feel like the best thing they could do to improve road safety is to have mandatory testing every 3-5 years on a live test course (or live roads). Current driving tests are ridiculous, all they measure is whether you can park and fail to address real driving skills. Last time I checked, the number of fatal parking accidents was much smaller than those on the road. Who cares if you can parallel park, I want to know if you can properly pass someone, drive in the right hand lane when you are not the fastest person on the road, indicate, not slam your breaks on all of the time, ect.

Also, once you've passed your driving tests as a teenager, you have license to become the worst possible driving you can be without any regular check-ups on your driving behavior (short of the police, which is an ineffective method of controlling EVERYONE'S driving habits, including those that aren't exactly illegal but certainly dangerous/ignorant). There are many bad drivers on the road and most of them aren't the one's speeding (which is the main focus of traffic police efforts). Since other bad driving behaviors are difficult for a police officer to catch (and prove in court), other means are necessary, but certainly not this cell phone jammer garbage.




Phone-based GPS?
By MDE on 10/15/2008 12:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Is this only for voice or data also? If I use my phone's built-in GPS to find my way around, it could potentially have its data connection cut off because I'm driving too fast and getting directions may distract me? I'll just pay a bit more for insurance, I'm already getting bled dry by them as it is.




Drivers are now watching movie
By SpaceJumper on 10/15/2008 1:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Drivers are now watching movie on the iPod or iPhone or Zune while driving. I think it is more dangerous than the cellphone.




By putergoon on 10/15/2008 3:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Cell phone companies want us to use our phones, that is how they make their money. They don't really care about the toll of damage caused by drivers as long as they are making money.
It would be easy to implement a block on calls from the moving vehicle however since cell phones use towers and the towers can be triangulated to make the GPS function. All that is needed is a function embedded in ALL cell phones that blocks them while they are moving. It would be easy to allow them to always be able to call 911 thereby insuring the safety of folks, say a jogger that is being pursued by a group of crazed rapists, or to work at high speed in an airplane.
Seriously, if it was the LAW this could be done with the next generation of phones and then within 2 years all phones would be required to have this function.
A problem with this idea is that business people are constantly using their moving vehicles as a mobile office and they will not like not being able to hurry to the next appointment while using their phones. Around my area there are as many of that type of distracted drivers as there teenagers and soccer moms.




Bluetooth headset & display
By Segerstein on 10/15/2008 4:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why not rather integrate the driver's phone with the car speakers and display the caller's name&number right next to the speed meter?

OK, sure, videocalls are a bit tricky. Using a video call camera integrated into the steering wheel and maybe a small screen for displaying the incoming video...




Emergency?
By Screwballl on 10/15/2008 4:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They can press a key to go into an "emergency" mode to directly connect, if necessary.


ok so by offering a bypass, there is a way for people to still get through and distract the driver. You think it is an emergency when a teenage girl thinks that her friends "life is going to end" because she heard through the grapevine that her friend's boyfriend may be thinking of dumping her in a few months? Of course.
You think that the investor will see an emergency when their stock drops to $139.97 from $140.20? Of course.

When you offer a bypass, it will be abused by almost everyone using this system... So there needs to be NO bypass. Instead, sound a tone over the car speakers that there is a call or message and the person will have to pull over and stop to get the message and call them back.

The real problem is that people will not buy this if they are used to talking/texting on the phone while driving and we will not see any decrease in accidents due to this device.




To many people drive anyway.
By mkruer on 10/15/2008 5:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
<Sarcasm>
We need less people on the road, I think that we need more Text messaging, Phone talking, Pot smoking, Alcoholic drink, Food eating, Makeup wearing, Non-seatbelt wearing, Road Rage people. Add all that up and in a few years no one will be left to drive. Think of all the gas money and air pollution that could be saved!
</Sarcasm>




Sad, Sad, Sad Days Like These
By Emryse on 10/16/2008 11:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
I know it's been said before, but I'll repeat it again... and again... and again. Until we get it.

P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y

That is THE only acceptable solution.

Not a new law. Not a new tool. Not a new tech.

Take the laws we currently have. Enforce them well. Make the penalties extremely stiff. Remove the privelege for those who abuse it. Permanently remove the privelege for those who abuse it again. We have never effectively done this.




Welp...
By wwwebsurfer on 10/15/2008 12:28:38 PM , Rating: 1
All I see here is a BUTTLOAD of extra bandwidth clogging up the pipeline when I could be playing games with a decent latency over it.




WHAAA!!!
By RabidDog on 10/15/2008 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
So what's more distracting, a cell phone or a child in the vehicle?
Or better yet being on the mobile phone while the child is crying?

This is another one of these 'save me from the world' devices. I for one do have a mobile phone (thus I am under the age of 70) and talk on it while driving. It's not the mobile phone's fault that I am a bad driver, that' just the way I drive. Get off the sidewalk if you don't like it, and yes I need all lanes at the same time.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki