FCC/DOT Want High-Tech Cure For Distracted Driving 432
coondoggie writes "The Federal Communications Commission and the US Department of Transportation are teaming up to develop what they called high-tech solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers. The DOT and FCC said they will set up a working group to evaluate technology-based answers to the distracted driving problem and will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents, the agencies stated." Meanwhile, Korea has overturned a ban on dashboard TV-watching for taxi drivers.
Re:Here's the cure (Score:3, Informative)
I like to drive, can we just make it more difficult for douchebags to drive please rather than replacing them.
Why bother? (Score:3, Informative)
A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records (1.37 per 100,000,000 miles traveled {0.85 per 100,000,000 km traveled, for you SI types}).
So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?
It's not people dying in accidents due to texting, since they're dying in accidents more rarely since texting became available.
And no, I don't think the one caused the other.
Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA - I don't see a real need for a high-tech (or any other kind of) solution to the problem of people driving with distractions....
Yes, it is. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it is. [insurance.com]
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Informative)
Do you know the numbers and are being coy?
For the Us killed and injured is here [census.gov]. Accidents overall is here [census.gov].
Re:Dashboard Cam (Score:5, Informative)
We've got those in Maine, they're called "rumble strips" and they are a grooved strip of pavement that runs just outside the white lines on either side of the pavement. Maine did a BIG push for them a number of years back when a Wal-Mart truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and wiped out a car in the breakdown lane full of teenagers and a couple of good samaritans who had stopped to help them change their flat tire.
And, man, you drive out of your lane and onto one of those things, you KNOW IT. The vibrations feel like an electric shock in the arse.
Now they just need to put those along more roads and in the median.
Not a perfect solution, but it does at least help people stay where they belong in the lane.
Re:Dashboard Cam (Score:1, Informative)
You should probably stop driving...
Re:Here's the cure (Score:3, Informative)
The motorcycle helmet law does protect me from someone else's medical costs coming out of my taxes."
Not sure how a motorcycle wreck (with or without a helmet) is going to affect your taxes any more than any other type of vehicle.
But, the argument is often put forth that it will cost you more in insurance premiums if there is no helmet law..and that is BUNK.
I live in LA, and two gov.'s ago, we had the choice to wear a helmet or not. Well, Gov. Blanco came in, and they made helmet mandatory again.
Guess What? You think our insurance premiums went down since we were all so much safer??
Not a chance...no, it makes no difference in what other people have to pay. I ride a bike....I pay insurance. I'm an adult and I know the risks...hell, a couple of months ago I was in a wreck, a SUV ran a stop sign and hit me on my bike, I went over the hood by about 5 ft and landed about 20 ft away. I only had one of the 'beanie' helmets on. I didn't hit my head and walked away amazingly unhurt for the accident. On that accident, I wouldn't have gotten any more hurt if I'd not had a helmet on.
Am I more likely now to ride with a helmet even if they do repeal the law...most likely. However, I'm sure as an adult I will at times make the choice not to wear one.
Either way it is my risk...either way it will not cost or save you any money on your insurance premiums.
Re:Here's the cure (Score:3, Informative)
I generally avoid bicycle lanes for this simple reason:
IT'S JUST PAINT.
It provides little, if any, protection against vehicles. I try to stick to trails that give a large separation between a bike and any given car, especially since most of those cars have people reading, drinking coffee, eating breakfast, playing the trumpet, under the influence, putting on makeup, shaving, texting, on the phone, otherwise distracted, or all of the above.
I prefer a nice, wide, 200-foot buffer zone with houses, trees, bodies of water, fences, and other impediments to vehicular traffic.
If I can't find that, I choose a lighter route one block over on side streets. It works out very well most of the time.
Cycling in a bike lane is done as a last resort. If I end up in traffic, I make sure that I can keep up with the traffic. Otherwise I'm an obstacle to traffic, and that translates easily to just "an obstacle". Over my morning commute, I am on trails 80% of the time, on bike lanes 15% of the time, and in traffic 5% of the time.
That 5% is going to get me hurt one day, but it's a smaller risk than coronary failure.