Software aims to stop calls while driving
Dave Teater says his son, Joe, could really light up a room.
"He was always happy, always smiling--I never remember Joe being angry with anybody," Teater said. "He loved life."
Four years ago, 12-year-old Joe was killed by a woman distracted while on her cell phone. She ran a red light and plowed into the Teaters' car.
"You never get over it," he said.
His wife, Judy, survived.
Teater closed his automotive consulting business to take up a cause--warning others, CBS News science and technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg reports.
"I don't think people ought to use a cell phone when they're driving, period," he said.
Now, Teater wants drivers to go the extra mile--with some new technology for cell phones and texting devices.
"The software periodically checks using various sensors that are already in the phone, like GPS and Wi-Fi," he explains.
He's joined a company that created Drive Assist, software downloaded to a handheld device. If GPS detects driving motion, a signal is sent to the wireless provider, which disables outgoing calls, except to 911, and diverts incoming calls to a custom voice mail.
"The person you have called appears to be driving," it says.
Maybe you think going hands-free is safe enough. Think again. New research shows whether or not drivers are actually holding the phone, they are just as distracted by the conversation itself--sometimes as impaired as if they were legally drunk.
"I just wish they knew what I knew," Teater said.
Drive Assist, available early next year, will cost between $10 and $20 a month. Nationwide Insurance has already announced people who use it will save money on their policies.
Teater is convinced it will save much more than that.
"Nothing will ever make up for the loss of Joe," he said. "But it'll add some meaning to it. And that is helpful."
When I learned to drive, I used a simulator, listened to lectures, and practiced driving with a teacher at my high school. We were taught things like IPDE (identify, predict, decide, and execute). (Some learned that with a leading "S" for "scan.") We learned about proper following distance. We even learned that driving was a privilege. Of course, I was also taught -- by my parents -- to be wise and careful. I wasn't always, of course, but that doesn't make it any less my responsibility.
This idea is yet another in a long line that seeks to address the symptom rather than the cause of a problem. Instead of teaching and *enforcing* proper driving, prevent people from using their judgment and taking responsibility for any lack thereof. I've observed local and state police ignore flagrant violations so often, I'm left to presume their only purpose is to react after the fact. Given that, and the lack of education, it's no wonder there are so many irresponsible and foolhardy drivers on the roads today.
The logic you use with the "If you can't drive while having a conversation, you shouldn't have a license" statement is similar to that of people who drive high or drunk. They say they can drive just fine, so they do it... They might make it to their destination safely, or they could kill themselves or someone else. Anyone could say they can talk on the phone and drive bc they do it all the time, but you never know what could happen. Granted, drunk driving is an extreme example, but read the stats in the article.
Your argument about flying doesn't hold up either. There are instruments on planes that you have to pay attention to, as well as when you drive (your speed, engine temperature, etc.). You should be alert and distraction free in order to properly operate both planes and cars. There's not nearly as much traffic to deal with in the air as there is on the ground. And yes, I know about flying. I've dated a pilot, and my father was a pilot.
The problem is that you can't let those hurt by some extremely infrequent tragedy decide what should be legal. I bet if you do a poll on those that had a son die by lightning, they would favor laws that prohibit kids from being outside on a thunderstorm.
Joe has my sympathy because I can only imagine how it might feel to lose a child. But the solution, in this case, is ill designed. A better design would insert a message at the beginning of the call that says "your caller appears to be driving at this moment" and then proceed to a normal call. That way the shame factor could prevent many accidents, but still would allow those that have a good reason to be calling or receiving calls, or that are using a good hands free system (which, contrary to the article, are inmensely effective: if you look at accident statistics the number of accidents caused or related to speaking on a hands free system is absolutely minimal) to have the freedom to do so.
I just hope Joe builds such a solution which has some chance of being accepted and thus saving lifes, rather than a flawed attempt at a perfect solution that will save no one.
Unfortunately we live in such a degraded society that we as individuals are not holding our own selves accountable for what we do with our actions (i.e. drinking and driving, & blaming cell phones and not drivers.)
My suggestion would be to test all current and up and coming drivers with a new road test that is in a controlled location which gives drivers an opportunity to see if they are capable to drive and talk on the cell phone at the same time while driving around obstacles. If they pass they get a cell phone endorsement on the back of their license, if they fail and they're caught talking on their phone after a non-related routine traffic stop, then they get their license suspended.
This is almost as bad as people who claim that drivers are distracted by GPS navigation devices. That is a load of hooey. So what happens? We ban navigation systems from cars and people have to go back to using paper maps and figuring out where they are on them. What's more distracting?
I think what is more useful is if ALL drivers are required to take driving classes because let me tell you, a whoooooole lot of people don't know how to drive "ooh look thats my exit let me fling my car across 4 lanes of highway right now because I'm sure everyone will break for me or hey let me jam on my breaks with all my strength because someone 7 car lengths up ahead is breaking"
Some european countries requires you to drive around a racetrack with oil slicks and ice to teach you how to handle emergency situations before you can obtain your license. We should do that here as well.
On the other hand, research has NOT demonstrated that you are equally impaired by using a cell phone with hands free than when drunk. You might be equally distracted, but the danger of being drunk is just very slightly related to being distracted, but to losing reflexes, lucidity and coordination.
What research has demonstrated is that even with a hands free there's some level of distraction, about the same level of distraction as that caused by talking to a passenger.
Claiming that hands free phones are equal to holding a cell phone is irresponsible. Probably people are dying because of that, as many of those not willing to stop talking on their phones are probably not switching to a hands free system if they beleive that fallacy.
Given there's an order of magnitude difference in dangerousness between using a hands free and holding a phone while talking, shame on you for propagating that lie. I hope you don't cause many additional deaths.
to infinity.
Of course, the responsibility must rest with the driver to eliminate such disractions and also to recognize such persons who love discord and chaos, or at least the spotlight at all times.
But sometimes, distraction will result in an accident no matter what, and the lesson is learned for the next time.
I feel that with so many cars on the road now, people need to help themselves and each other to maintain as alert and calm an atmosphere as possible when driving.
People should still have fun, laugh, and comment on the scenery. Just no pointing at the attraction behind the driver's left shoulder, or using driving time to start that fight you both have been putting off.
And everyone should save all the mind games until you are at home in an open space with no traffic coming.
- by TXKnows November 19, 2008 1:44 PM PST
- "Drive Assist, available early next year, will cost between $10 and $20 a month."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(24 Comments)Who's gonna pay this?
The insurance company is not going to credit you $10-20 a month. You'll be lucky to get a single percent reduction per month.
No price can be placed on life, i assure you. But on a phone such as the iphone, this software could come preinstalled for free! They could (at the cost of many users) make it mandatory, sure.
What I would like to know is assuming it's an agreeable idea (which it does not seem to be), how would you successfully implement it and over what period of time?
Consider the number of cell phones on the market, many of them could not support the technology, so they become obsolete and enter land fills; acceptable?. Consider the number of people who would be capable of hacking their phone to disable the feature (perhaps through VOIP connections out from their smart phone).
Additionally, Onstar is a company that makes their bank on providing wireless services for emergency and non-emergency situations to drivers. You are contesting their ability to provide their hands free information service.
The point is this:
The money used to implement this idea (a very large sum at $10/month times every cell phone user in the US) seems to be robbery when you consider it could be instead paid as a fee for a more stringent annual drivers test that would provide effective results in the form of massively increased drivers safety on many levels by EDUCATING people to promote good decision making and by removing bad drivers from the road instead of the current idea of forced reform.