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:Dashboard Cam (Score:2, Insightful)
Steering wheel spike (Score:3, Insightful)
I would guess the simplest solution would be a sharp point in the middle of the steering wheel.
There is nothing like the threat of death to keep one focused.
What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks. All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control. Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.
Reminder of the story of the person in the motor home who set the speed control then made a sandwich. Urban legend or not it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention.
Wrong approach (Score:1, Insightful)
I think what is really needed is to REMOVE technology from driving. Fuck that radio, fuck that phone, most especially fuck that laptop you have propped up on your steering wheel as you try to finish a paper on the way to class.
(... I'll admit it, even I have found myself doing all three at the same time on more than one occasion).
How about a special license and exam? (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm sure a fair number of people can learn and be trained to do it under controlled and safe conditions. And that you can set an exam for it - e.g. on simulator they have to get from A to B through difficult traffic and road conditions while you ask them fairly difficult questions over a phone and they have to answer in a timely manner.
As for the rest who can't pass that exam, they should just be trained and learn to "shut up and drive" and "forget everything else and drive" when road conditions get difficult. It doesn't matter whether there's tech involved or not - you could be chatting with a passenger, fine but if the road conditions get difficult, just shut up and drive. If they can't even do this (which is easier), they shouldn't be allowed to drive. It's a matter of priorities - people don't take driving seriously enough.
Drive, damn you. Drive! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it even necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Has there been a statistically significant increase in accidents caused by distracted driving?
By significant I mean real - not just the result of changing the way accidents are reported.
If not, then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping.
Re:Steering wheel spike (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about a special license and exam? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people who think they can talk and drive/fly at the same time and do it safely.
Those are even more dangerous.
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted. Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving? Eating while driving? Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?
These behaviors are all dangerous to bystanders, and in any are with decent distracted driving laws they are all illegal; but those laws are almost never enforced, presumably because they aren't the big money-maker that speeding tickets are.
Also, while you can block radio signals into and out of a car - and indeed there are those who think certain window tinting requirements in CA might inadvertantly have that effect - this will probably only create a market for external antenna kits.
The only real solution to distracted driving is education. Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.
User education? (Score:3, Insightful)
Technology does not create policy, it follows it. This is a social problem, and technology is not the answer. It's just like copyright infringement, the war on drugs, poverty, or any other malaise of society. It's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals, medicine, computers, technology, money, etc., at a social problem fixes it. It doesn't.
Distracted driving occurs because of a lack of training and understanding regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. The correct solution is more stringent examinations and training before getting a driver's license -- training that will impress upon drivers the importance of what they are doing: Which is operating a several ton metal can on wheels at high speeds around other people, which if improperly used or maintained, can kill both the driver and other people. Look at Germany: I don't hear distracted driving being as much of a problem there, because in that country, they worship the car. They have very strict regulations for safety and the citizens respect the responsibility that comes with vehicle ownership and use.
In this country, however, we have a sense of entitlement about driving. We allow people convicted of drunk driving two, five, or even twenty times to retain their license. And then we impliment stupid policy decisions like stripping people of their license for failing to pay child support or taxes as punitive measures. First, a driver's license should be a certification in which the only factor for getting or retaining it is suitability to operate a motor vehicle. Secondly, people should be required as a condition of holding that certificate, to take refresher courses on driving and their vehicle should be subjected to regular inspections.
What we need to do is make people take their driving seriously, and we do that by making clear standards about what vehicles and drivers we want on the public highway system. Half-assing it with technological solutions only succeeds in creating a web of unintended consequences that trap innocent people without making a substantive or qualitative improvement to driving conditions for the general public.
Re:Steering wheel spike (Score:3, Insightful)
And blaming the safety features is just silly. Any fool can press the gas pedal while steering with the same knee and do whatever they want with their hands, no matter how old the car is. And they will.
Re:How about a special license and exam? (Score:4, Insightful)
This argument inevitably fails over time. Yes, you can text (or drink or watch TV or $random_distraction) most of the time. After all, look at all the idiots doing so each and every day. You don't always get into to trouble but clearly your risk of plowing into my ass increases with every stupid decision you make. As dose my risk of getting clobbered. Sooner or later, statistics wins.
Get over it. You're a number, just one point in the graph. And I want each and every one of you tiny little points focusing on driving. Tweet later.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, that's a solution that doesn't work. Case in point: every time something related to this subject comes up, we get the mandated number of posts from people who say, "Yeah, some people may not be able to drive while talking on the phone/eating a pizza/doing their taxes, but I'm really good, and I don't have any trouble doing it and staying in complete control of my car." *All* of these morons will hear the education and say, "Yeah, but I'm an exception."
Re:Dashboard Cam (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records
How about the accident rate? I'm asking because improved protection of drivers and passengers is likely to reduce the fatality rate ;-)
Eh, that is what early cars WERE. (Score:3, Insightful)
And NOBODY cared in early cars that the steering wheels and control knobs were sharp metal spikes ready to impale a driver who didn't even have the option of a seatbelt. In fact, seatbelts it was argued by someone in a desert would kill more people because it would take them longer to escape if their car went into water, the driver remarked, surrounded by nothing but sand for hundreds of miles in any direction.
People are idiots, no solution has yet been found to this dilemma.
Re:Here's the cure (Score:2, Insightful)
Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state. Banning violent video games = nanny state. Seat belt law = nanny state. There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving. Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves. Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.
No.
The motorcycle helmet law does protect me from someone else's medical costs coming out of my taxes.
Re:Here's the cure (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? About the only people I've found who LIKE to drive are teenagers for 3 weeks after they get their license and motorheads who make up 0.5% of the population. Everyone else likes to go places, but not to DRIVE.
If I could honestly just kick back with my laptop while my car drove me to work (or even better - on long trips - imagine just taking a nap in the back seat rather than stopping at a hotel for the night) then I'd be absolutely overjoyed.
I wouldn't call one of the biggest leaps on convenience in the last 200 years "another step towards becoming a nanny state".
Re:Yes, it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your answer is worthless: of course cell phones can cause accidents. The question posed was not whether they can cause accidents, or even if they _do_ cause accidents. The question is whether the introduction of cell phones has _increased_ overall accident rates. In other words, are cellphones just another drop in the distraction bucket? Without cellphones, would these bad drivers be reading the newspaper, shaving, doing their hair, etc. or would they be good drivers? For some reason I have a hard time believing the latter...
Re:Here's the cure (Score:3, Insightful)
I shell out almost 20K a year in medical insurance ($250 on my side, my company pays $1400). My medical costs don't come out of your taxes. I ride without a helmet (Illinois doesn't require it).
Do you have kids? Because I'm not a fan of my $5K/year property taxes with 70% of that going to our local school district, when I don't have kids.
Do you like living in an educated society or would you prefer that children whose parents can't afford school work in factories?
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Steering wheel spike (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep the answer is a threat, not another safeguard. Couldn't be simpler. Philadelphia had the good sense, finally, to make the use of a cell phone on almost any vehicle illegal just the other day.
But this is all obvious and has been obvious for years. The only reason that nothing was done has to be the lobbyists for the phone industry, and politicians who love their own cell phones, and have caved in to the lobbyists.
I know this sounds like the typical crap you read in comments: it's all a conspiracy by so and so. But in this case I just can't see it any other way. I wish this weren't true but I think it is. I can't think of anything in recent memory that has made me more cynical about government and it's easy co-option by business.
Re:Steering wheel spike (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's the cure (Score:1, Insightful)
Creating and educating the next generation is the responsibility of an entire society. Children are not just fashion accessories. Given this, people who don't have children should shoulder _more_ of the cost of raising children, since they aren't contributing their time and effort in the child-rearing process.
Don't like this view? How about the opposite, where no-one takes responsibility for raising children, and before you die the ruling class is made up of children that weren't educated well in science, government, or how a society should work.
Re:Here's the cure (Score:3, Insightful)
Beautiful idea. And, I'm not being sarcastic. People are insulated from the road. Years ago, travel was tiring, because you experience the travel. The tires sang, the shocks and springs conveyed the texture of the road surface into your feet and arse, the wind whistled past to remind you how fast you were going. The sound of the engine came through the firewall, quite clearly. All of that helped to remind you that you were TRAVELING at a pretty high rate of speed.
Today? Smooth ride, almost silent, no sensation of traveling if you just close your eyes. People are lulled into believing they are safe with all the airbag mumbo jumbo, wrinkle panels, seat belts, and the various gadgets that CLAIM to make driving safer. Marketing wants you to believe that you cannot get killed in their cars, and people believe what marketing tells them.
Mount that bayonet. Make an obvious statement that people cannot ignore. They WILL become safer drivers.
Re:Here's the cure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's the cure (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably about the same if you have a perfectly preserved skull, but have broken your neck, and are a quadriplegic, or whatever. Look the only way you'd save $$ is to ban motorcycles completly.
Frankly, if I get hit that badly..I think I'd rather be dead than survive a motionless piece of meat that can think, but not do much else.
And one little aside. You know where most head trauma happens on the roads? In cars.
Why not require helmets in cars too? It sure would save money and lives....I mean, where do you draw the line? Life requires a bit of risk of life and limb if you want to live it at all. Why not let and adult make his own choices...?
Re:Here's the cure (Score:3, Insightful)
My argument is that if you want to have children, you should have to shoulder more of the cost to have them.
The reality is you'll shoulder the cost if they're not raised right. They'll become criminals. They'll ruin the places and things that you love with mismanagement. Oh and what's the bet that you're not crying "personal responsibility" when you're asked to pay $10,000k for a simple visit to your local GP because he's in debut for $10M. Oh and the doctor treating you is the kid you want society to abandon to the care of their parents alone.
In other words you get a lot of benefit out of kids being raised well and having opportunities to better themselves and the world. So how about YOU take some responsibility instead of pretending you live in a vacuum that contains no children just because YOU don't want to breed.