Comments on: Software aims to stop calls while driving

Daniel Sieberg of CBS News reports on how gadgets can use GPS to detect when you're driving--and turn off the calls, for safety's sake.

[umbrae]

I agree using a Cell phone while driving is bad, but this is no different than talking to other passengers or having children in the car. Distractions happen, so even with this software I do not see it making any difference: even if made law. People are going to talk in their cars.

I couldn't agree more with the idea that drivers should not be using any communcations device, whether it's hands-free or not. But I need to know that any blocking system is restricted to the driver and will not impact passengers using their cell phones.

[sarkelvin]

With this software, you can't call anybody even if you are just a passenger in a public transport. What a bad idea!

[kc6hur]

Gee, then the passengers and I could enjoy a more quite trip. In fact, the GPS/location technology could be extended to include restaurants and movie theaters through a no-cell phone registry. Imagine a nice quite evening out on the town.

[johnreg]

How would the system affect people riding in a car or those trying to convey information about an emergency? My wife often drives over the weekend and it seems that I would not be able to use my phone as a passenger. Also my commute is mostly non-stop highway driving. That means I will miss the call I am expecting any day now to come home because my wife is in labor. If she tries to call me a few minutes after I head out to the office, which is an hour away, she would have to wait two hours for me to get back to the house. If the software alerts the caller that I am driving it should also give them the option of breaking through in an emergency. It should also let me turn off the blocking so I can use the phone while I am not driving. Unfortunately those features will make it easy for people to cheat the system negating the purpose.

[jdpastrain]

This is a great idea except for one problem, passengers can not use their cell phones either! Maybe the software could tie to the vehicle's seatbelt alarm system, via bluetooth, so only the driver's seat was locked out. Of course we all know that is easy to defeat.

[moespeeds]

Idiotic. How about putting the blame on the driver and not the phone. This moron probably believes in gun control too. Look at pilots (I happen to be one), they multitask doing many things at once as well as communicating over a radio in very stressful situations, and you don't see planes falling out of the sky all day long. It's not about the phone, it's about the driver. How about making the driving test a little more challenging so somebody, somewhere actually fails. The things I see on the road on a daily basis boggles my mind. Test and retest. If you can't drive while having a conversation, you shouldn't have a license.

[compudoc318]

you cant be serious comparing flying to driving, way more interactions on the roads, hence the reason its way safer to fly than drive.

[c|net Reader]

Flying and driving aren't directly comparable, to be sure, but the basic point is valid: most drivers on the road should be denied that *privilege*. Licensing tests, including the driving portion, are a joke. They don't ask questions about things like, two cars approach a four way stop at about the same time, which car should proceed first? What should one do when approaching an intersection with a traffic light that does not work? You know, rules of the road kinds of questions. Instead, they focus on how many of what kind of drink one can have before one has reached the legal blood alcohol limit and other misdirected nonsense.

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.

[kelctex]

Idiotic? Moron? How dare you. The man who worked on this project lost his son. I'm friends with someone in the family, so show some respect.

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.

[moespeeds]

Idiotic. How about putting the blame on the driver and not the phone. This moron probably believes in gun control too. Look at pilots (I happen to be one), they multitask doing many things at once as well as communicating over a radio in very stressful situations, and you don't see planes falling out of the sky all day long. It's not about the phone, it's about the driver. How about making the driving test a little more challenging so somebody, somewhere actually fails. The things I see on the road on a daily basis boggles my mind. Test and retest. If you can't drive while having a conversation, you shouldn't have a license.

[Hernys]

Hold on. Don't attack Joe. He's suffered a lot already.
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.

[nicmart]

Burger King has announced that it will put a chip inside of each burger which recognizes when the eater is driving and forces projectile vomiting when the car is in motion. It's to be expected in a country ruled by lawyers.

[compudoc318]

I too had a friend who lost his mother to some idiot lady on the cell phone not paying attention. now someone is dead cause someone was bored.....ban cell use in cars.....remember 10 years ago, we didnt have cells then and we all got home safely. i saw a show that compared hands free device driving to regular hand held use, and guess what, reaction time was no better on the hands free. they also showed how drivers using the phone slow way down, causing congestion. hang up and make the call later, no one should die cause you are bored.

[Perry_Clease]

Are they any hard figures, real numbers other than "a lot", of cellphone induced accidents? I am not saying that it isn't a problem, but maybe the situation isn't as bad it as people make it out to be. Responsible drivers are just that and know when it is safe to change the radio, yell at the kids, take a phone call whereas irresponsible drivers can be dangerous in an auto not equipped with a radio, no passengers, and no food or drink.

[rellirific]

Studies also show that driving while fatigued is equally as dangerous as driving under the influence, but no one is calling for a reduction in the number of hours people work so they can drive home safely. This device just makes people feel safer, but they're not. There are far more distractions while driving than a cell phone. People were running red lights before cell phones were invented. The truth is there are just bad drivers on the road. And above all else, this software simply doesn't work. It has no way of knowing if you're a passenger in a car or riding on mass transit system.

[inachu]

We neeed this ASAP on the east coast!

[mooreoftom]

Personally, I wish more software would be developed to control drunk driving which statistically kills by far way more people than the random one killed by distracted drivers. I actually used a cell phone when driving an hour and a half home every morning to talk to my fiance who kept me awake after a 12 hour night shift. I guarantee you that saved my life as well as others' around me.

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.

[eBob1]

This is the craziest idea of heard yet. When cell phones first came out, they were often mounted in the car. Now, as they have become smaller and more affordable, more people are using them irresponsibly. I say hold the individual drivers responsible for their actions. If someone is distracted by a cell phone conversation, how is that different than being distracted by conversing with passengers? Both cause accidents.

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?

[jerseygirl2]

There are drivers who are alert and can multi-task efficiently and responsibly. There are scatterbrains who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. I sympathize with whoever is affected as the result of drunken, careless, or inattentive drivers; however, I'm fed up with government constantly interfering and regulating the private lives of responsible, intelligent citizens. What will come next? Will it be forbidding drivers and their passengers from actually talking to each other inside cars? Ridiculous! I say: "Stay out of my business, my home, my phone and my car!"

[renGek]

Would be bad if you were rushing to the hospital with someone near death and you want to call ahead to give them a heads up. In a situation like that, you wouldn't wan to pull over to the side of the road to talk to someone.

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.

[Hernys]

I wonder how will the software detect if I'm driving or I'm a passenger in a moving car or bus.
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.

[natatbeach]

In truth, any conversation inside a car can and does cause an accident. There are passengers and people on the other end of a phone conversation who are somehow not happy until they grab too much of a driver's attention, and they will point, scream at nothing suddenly, pout during traffic, and give directions too late; if on the phone the classic lines are "so and so just fell out of tree, how fast can you get home?" " I wish I knew if it is normal to bleed that much," " Oh yes, my ex boyfriend or girlfriend is here, but is just leaving,"
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.

[TXKnows]

"Drive Assist, available early next year, will cost between $10 and $20 a month."
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.