Former consumer protection commissioner Mark A. Shiffrin, and Avi Silberschatz, a computer science professor at Yale, suggest in an op-ed at the NYT that the way to solve the problem of distracted drivers texting and using cellphones is not by outlawing the practice — “too many drivers value convenience more than safety and would assume they wouldn’t get caught” – but by using an elegant technological solution:
“When a cellphone is used in a moving car, its signal must be handed off from one cell tower to the next along the route. This process tells the service provider that the phone is in motion. Cellphone towers could be engineered to not transmit while a phone is traveling. After a phone had stopped moving for a certain amount of time — three minutes, maybe — it would be able to transmit again.”
But what about non-drivers, say, carpoolers in the back seat trying to coordinate their morning meetings? They’ve got that covered, too:
“It is…easy to imagine technology that would only allow passengers to use their phones – by tethering them to devices, placed on the passenger side of the car, that would override the system.” (emph. mine)
Next problem: cell-phone users who might disable their phones by walking too fast. Electro-shock pedometers, anyone?
and how about emergency situations? busses? trains?
wtf?! some of these professors should step out of the ivory tower occasionally and take a look at the real world.
“overriding the system” and not “overriding the populace” ? for each freedom we think we own, someone is constantly scheming to control it.
The common good and all that. Somedays the south of Chile looks more appealing than anywhere. Very similar to coastal B.C. with Salmon.
Proposed solution: cell phone implants that are thought activated! They can read your mind and know if you want to make a call or send a text. For the purposes of texting, they can read your mind and know what your message is! MIND CONTROL!!!
Technical solutions to behavioural problems are almost always a bad idea.
Can’t fault the perfessor here. He is just doing what comes natural to geeks… inventing more ways to do stuff more complicated. Anyone ever use all the features on their cell phone? Ya gotta admit that almost everyone with a bit of tinker in them has built or tried to build a Rube Goldberg device. Then again there are those out there that still have VCRs flashing 12:00.
The truly sad part is that there will be almost as many idiots out there that will try to bypass the “safety” feature and try for a Darwin Award at the same time.
No new laws required. Just add an amendment to the Impaired driving act to include talking and texting while driving. If an accident occurs while doing so, the accident is the fault of that person. It seems that the text or phone conversation is more important than the safety of others on the road, who are focused on the primary task at hand,……..”DRIVING” !!!!!!
I hate the implants. They itch.
Isn’t not texting and driving covered under the law against imprudent driving. Does there really have to be a seperate law for each activity that we should not partake in while driving? You shouldn’t curl your hair while driving, shave while driving, apply make up while driving, read a novel while driving, cook supper while driving, have 5ex while driving, etc. If we need a law for texting, do we not need a law for each of these? Perhaps they should make a car that only operates if you have both hands on the wheel at the proper position.
It is reasonably easy to figure out where you are and how fast you are moving with a cell phone, in urban areas anyway. Your phone is constantly sending reports on signal levels for reasons of power management, you don’t want to waste battery on too strong of a signal, or lose a connection because it is too weak. Cell towers are directional, usually you see them arranged in a triangle pointing outwards, so that takes care of direction. But once he crosses over into the idea of “tethers” for passengers, he is in la la land. These guys want to take us from “What is not expressly forbidden is allowed” into their world of “What is not expressly allowed is forbidden.”
well, they could just implemnet a law against stupidity, that would cover most bases
And what if in the case of an emergency?
Idle chat is going to kill people also.
By the same argument, no car would be able to exceed 110 km/h.
yeah why stop there? speed limiters, 5 point harnesses, and neck braces for all! why not?
Pandora @ 8:45. Yeah there is.It’s called driving with undue care and attention.In neighbouring Strathcona County,they just enacted a no cell phone while driving bylaw.All the politicos were running around patting themselves on the backs,and the do-gooder socialists were beaming like fruit cakes,until I pointed out,just to stir the pot,that they had just passed a law for a law that already exists.How much money was blown? Told the residents to think about that next year when their property taxes go UP,with the excuse they can’t cut back anymore.Frickin bureaucrats buliding empires and trying to look like they are actually doing some good!
Some people do wish to complicate things. Why not require EVERYONE to complete a full driver’s exam (written & road) whenever their license is to be renewed?
Not only would it weed out morons who text/apply makeup/watch DVD’s when driving but would smarten up people who move from Tractor Rut, PEI. to GTA and panic in rush hour on the 401 as well as Metro Vancouver drivers who move to Freezeurbutt, Sask and do not have a clue how to drive on ice and snow.
Yes it will be expensive for every driver to take the 5 year exam but the drop in insurance premiums (not to mention time saved from less traffic jams created by bone-head accidents) will make it heck of a good investment!
Gosh, wonder why Mark A. Shiffrin is a *former* consumer protection commissioner?
next ,if the cell phone can figure out your velocity they will be sending out tickets automatically to your phone number. another slippery slope.
So…what’s to stop the driver from tethering his cel phone to those devices placed on the passenger side of the car???
The question is whether government really wants to enforce or not. I observe no such attempts and I put 100 miles a day in traffic.
So…what’s to stop the driver from tethering his cel phone to those devices placed on the passenger side of the car???
Posted by: manorrd at October 6, 2009 4:23 AM
Obviously it will be illegal to make a cord long enough to reach the driver. Bahahaha.
As an aside, when I was in Montreal a couple of months ago I saw far more people reading a newspaper while driving than texting.
“if the cell phone can figure out your velocity they will be sending out tickets automatically to your phone number. another slippery slope”
As long as they are not suspected terrorists, every thing is hunky dory.
The Brits came up with a solution to this that seems to work. If there is an accident they seize the cell phones and query the companies to see if they were in use at the time, if they were then your insurance is invalid and you are on the hook for all costs, no collision , no PLPD, nothing. Once the first bozo gets sued for several million to support the family he ran into then the rest start to pay attention. This doesn’t resolve the problem if there is more than one person in the car and the other one says they were talking on the drivers phone. The police will suspect that you are lying but will only be able to prove it with the cooperation of the other person you were calling, so you better not have been arguing with your ex…..
The British method could only determine if the phone was used before the crash, but it will have to be proven by whom and when the use had stopped.
There is no ideal solution, if people keep going out of their way to endanger themselves and others.
This is all quite humorous! Does anyone have an idea for the accident that is caused by the cellphone user cutting someone off and thereby causing the accident behind them? In this case, the “cellphoner” proceeds along his merry way, possibly completely unawares of the turmoil in his wake. The solution cannot include a witness getting the license plate and reporting it.