Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Car Cellphone Bans Driving Bluetooth 208

Posted by CmdrTaco from the hadn't-thought-of-that dept.
jmatheny14 noted that the BBC is running an article about an unexpected side effect of car cellphone bans. It says"Legislation banning the use of mobile phones in cars is spurring car manufactures to look for alternatives such as Bluetooth." and "Because it can be used with a hands-free headset that can connect to a mobile phone even if the device is some distance away, it could be a perfect way to get around the ban."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Car Cellphone Bans Driving Bluetooth More

Car Cellphone Bans Driving Bluetooth

Comments Filter:

  • Why? (Score:1)

    by fok ( 449027 )
    Why ban?

  • Hands Free (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Um... has nobody heard of hands free headsets?

    • has nobody heard of hands free headsets?

      When a fellow talks on the phone while driving, even with a headset, the conversation still reduces his concentration to the level of a driver at the legal limit for alcohol intoxication.

  • Another one of these laws (Score:3, Insightful)

    by indiigo ( 121714 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:57AM (#4541533) Homepage
    uh newsflash.

    This is one of those laws where most people ignore it. Like Jaywalking, Speeding, and Sodomy!

    It's difficult to enforce, due to the lack of similar laws in neighboring cities and townships.

    "Sorry, Jim, going into Suffolk county now, gotta hang up cause there's signs everywhere! I'll reach ya via bluetooth!"
    • Lawmakers seem to forget the chain of how laws work - without enforcement, laws are nothing more than toilet paper with words on it. Poor idiots just keep passing laws against this or that, but those laws are instantly neutered when the police cannot enforce it because the law's enforcement requires authoritative clairivoyance, or it requires technology that just doesn't exist, or even the police themselves refuse to enforce it because it takes their manpower and equipment away from *real* problems.
    • ok this is a U.K. law

      what the law bans is holding onto a phone and driveing

      you CAN use a HANDS FREE kit and drive

      now tell me bluetooth does that connect hands free kit to your phone ?

      misinformation is what makes the web useless

      regards

      John jones
  • I have always liked the idea of being able to take an address from your PC, transfer it to your PDA with contact information, and if your really having problems finding it - beaming it to your car's navigation computer to find the directions to get to said person's house - eliminating re-entry and it's associated problems.

    And if it would make a universal standard for hands-free talking on a cell phone - why not? Granted, there will be people who will abuse it - and dumb people who will crash because they are using distracting features while driving, but perhaps they shouldn't be driving in the first place.

  • it's going to be "Blue Eye" networking. (Score:3, Funny)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:57AM (#4541538)
    when I connect w/the driver's face after he hits me b/c he was too busy talking to someone else instead of paying attention to where he was going.

  • This is going to take a while! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by damu ( 575189 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:58AM (#4541539) Journal
    It is not just the fact that cellphone take one hand away from the wheel it is also the dialing, the looking for a phonenumber, the dropping your cell phone and looking for it under your seat, while keeping one eye on the road and the foot on a the pedal. Until, a car product can get rid of these "dangers" that cell phone cause, things will remain the same.

    dam(U)
    • I'm not exactly sure what options you have to have, or even if its out yet, etc (I think it is; should I be posting this? I'm sure its announced somewhere), but they have voice recognition for both dialing numbers and names. You have to program the names in and associate it with one of your memory slots. You activate by holding a button the steering wheel, which then prompts you, "Number please." It works pretty well, and with very little distraction from the road. All the hands-free stuff is built into the car.

      They're investigating bluetooth mostly for the convienance that you don't even have to plug the phone into the car when you get in. Its in your briefcase? Thats fine! Of course, you still have to plug it in if you want your phone to charge (or, not discharge) while you drive. Not sure if it has the power to turn the phone on if its off.

      (FYI -- the BMW systems relies on a specific Motorola phone (one of the StarNet varieties) which has support for their telephony functions. You can take the phone with you, but it needs to be plugged into the car system for it to integrate with the telephony functions. Also FYI, I have first hand experience with the system, and not by using some prototype at a car show, although I'm not sure if it was a final retail car, either. If it isnt release yet, I'm sure they'll have it out really soon. No idea when to expect bluetooth.)
    • " It is not just the fact that cellphone take one hand away from the wheel it is also the dialing, the looking for a phonenumber, the dropping your cell phone and looking for it under your seat, while keeping one eye on the road and the foot on a the pedal"

      Dialling- Most phones have voice dialling now and its possible to use the Headset to jsut say the name of the person and it dials the number. Mine works pretty flawlessly actually. Though I can just store 10 voice tags, but I am sure thats not gonna be the case for long.

      looking for a phonenumber- Again if U just have to say the name, U dont have to look up the number.

      the dropping your cell phone and looking for it under your seat - Well Dude, its wireless. Even if u drop the phone, u dont lose connection to the phone.

      The only thing is the lack of concentration while u r talking to someone. Most headsets just fit in one ear, so I guess u can still hear the other sounds,like honking and all. Its not all that bad in my opinion.

  • car cellphones? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:59AM (#4541546)
    When did cellphones gain sentience, let alone power to pass laws? And when did they become our masters, telling us where we can use our technology and where -- hang on, lemme get that...

  • Distraction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:59AM (#4541549)
    It isn't the actual holding of the cellphones that causes the danger, it just increases it. There was an experiment conducted, where a professional obstacle course driver was asked to count from 1 to 100 while navigating the course, and wasn't able to do it. His driving ability decreased by as much as 90% from simply counting. Bluetooth advancing is good and well, but not at the price of another increase in car accidents. As if drunk teens weren't enough....

    • Re:Distraction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kithraya ( 34530 )
      So by extension, talking to a passenger in your car is also dangerous?

      • Re:Distraction (Score:5, Insightful)

        by plumby ( 179557 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:55AM (#4541832)
        From what I remember of the research, it showed that passengers are usually reasonably aware of what is going on on the road and will often stop talking to the driver if they detect danger, such as a busy junction, whereas the person on the other end of the phone has no knowledge of what is going on, and therefore cannot react in the same way.

        So the answer to your question is no (or at least not to the same extent).

        • I think this is hogwash. I've actually hit a parking garage wall (going 5mph) because I was distracted by a passenger. I've never done anything of the sort on the phone. However, I HAVE dropped my phone when I really needed to concentrate. Prioritizing driving is easier on the phone because A) I keep my conversation short and B) I tell the person I'm driving so they expect pauses. When someone is next to me, I have a tendancy to turn my head and look at them, and I can't hang up if traffic get's messy.
          • I sometimes drive with a passenger who likes to talk to me continually, but particularly when I am just merging into a motorway lane
            at some speed, when I really need to concentrate. I have absolutely no idea why this is...

            However, mobile phones can be very distracting too - it's very easy to pay too much attention to the phone, e.g. when listening to automated traffic reports that can't be paused. The same can probably happen if you are listening to someone and don't interrupt them for whatever reason.
          • I've actually hit a parking garage wall (going 5mph) because I was distracted by a passenger.

            That proves nothing other than that you are obviously unsafe to drive.

        • passengers are usually reasonably aware of what is going on on the road

          Really, tell that to my 3 yearold screaming kid in the back seat? Howabout my drunk girlfriend in the passenger seat?
          • Note the use of the word usually. Sometimes passengers are not aware, but on average they are more likely to be aware of what is going off around the car than a person on the other end of the phone.

      • Re:Distraction (Score:2, Insightful)

        by skeedlelee ( 610319 )
        Absolutely. I know someone who basically has no ability to concentrate on the road if you're talking to them. Figured this out once the hard way. No accident but when they ran the SECOND stop sign I decided that I should never mix talking and driving with them.

        Also, pretty much anything can be a distraction. I once got into (my one) accident by looking down for like 0.5s to hit eject on my tapedeck. Traffic was doing like 15mi/hr but it came to a complete stop in that period of time. No one is proposing doing away with stereos in cars but basically anything that is a distraction is a hazard. Laws banning cell phones while driving are just trying to reduce the incidence of needless distraction. Given the way a lot of people drive (Do they even teach following distance in drivers ed. these days?) it really doesn't take much to cause an accident these days.
    • Minimizing your time through an obstacle course is a far cry from most normal driving. It's simply a matter of making driving the highest priority process so when it demands more processor time, the cell phone is what starts seeing the lag.

      11+ accident free years of driving with a cell phone...

  • Not what drove me... (Score:5, Informative)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:59AM (#4541550) Homepage
    Car Cellphone Bans Driving Bluetooth

    I bought an Ericsson T68i [sonyericsson.com] phone because of iSync [apple.com] and its connection to the phone via Bluetooth -- lets you also send SMS from the computer. Nothing sucks more about a cell phone than trying to use the keypad to enter phone book items. Plus the Ericsson T68 is pretty much a Palm killer with its Calendar and voice recorder.

  • Can someone explain? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by jhsewell ( 620291 )
    I don't understand this. What does using a BlueTooth enabled headset have to do with a ban on Cell phones while driving?

    Does the proposed ban make an exception for headsets? If so does it also allow wired headsets? Or wireless technologies other than BlueTooth? And how would having BlueTooth built into the car make any difference?

    And why is everyone so excited about wireless Bluetooth headsets anyway? This seems like overkill when traditional, cheap, analog wireless would accomplish the same thing.

    -Jason
    • ok basically you cant drive while holding onto your phone

      simple

      you can use handsfree kits to drive and talk and most handsfree kits will start useing bluetooth so this story is totally bogus

      the nice thing about bluetooth is that you can have the handfree kit built into the car and all you have to do is carry the phone in the car and it attachs without any wires in a standard way

      bogus stroy headline or what

      regards

      John jones

    • This seems like overkill when traditional, cheap, analog wireless would accomplish the same thing.

      I have been through no less than 4 wired headsets on my StarTAC in the last year. The wire always wears out near the plug. No wires = no wires to wear out.

  • Spirit of the law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aridhol ( 112307 ) <ka_lac@hotmail.com> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:00AM (#4541554) Homepage Journal
    Because it can be used with a hands-free headset that can connect to a mobile phone even if the device is some distance away, it could be a perfect way to get around the ban.
    OK, the law says you can't have a cell phone. There's probably a reason for this (safety?). Now, the manufacturers are trying to violate the spirit of the law while following the letter. While not technically illegal, it's still wrong.
    • The law, at least in New York, says you can't use it without a hands-free headset of some kind. The article provides little insight into the laws that are trying to be passed in Europe, but I believe an outright ban is pretty unlikely ("70% of calls are made from the car" -- there's certainly a lot of corporate interest that will make their voice heard).

      The point is, using bluetooth to automatically recognize a nearby headset and use it without wires going all over the place is certainly an improvement. More people will follow the law if its more convienant. Even more-so, the phone can communicate with the car, and use the in-car speakers and a built-in microphone. Nothing to put on, and nothing to set up.
    • Where have you been sir?
      Spirit of the law ... sounds nice. Frankly speaking the business community dosent care. This will make then money, and everything else can go take a walk. Making laws wont halp, neither blaming the manufacturers. They do this for money and we can say that they do wrong. But every wonder why they do the wrong thing... coz its us, the customers who want to violate the law. they just provide us the tools.
    • They should also ban talking to passengers, because the spirit of the law was to eliminate the danger of carrying on a discussion while trying to drive.
      • A passenger next to you can also assess the situation from moment to moment and STFU. Someone on the other ond of the phone has no idea that you are about to run that red light because you are so into the phone conversation.
        • Could you give me some data on this? Anecdotally that person is usually looking at you (read: not on the road). The argument that the passenger is "helping you drive" is ludicrous.
          • The argument that the passenger is "helping you drive" is ludicrous.

            It's not a matter of them helping you drive, but rather a 3 or 4 second silence while you deal with some bit of weirdness is not a problem. In a phone conversation, it very well might be. Especially an "important" call. Your boss/girlfriend/whatever. The caller cannot see what you are dealing with, and merrily goes on about their side of the call. You, in trying to listen and talk, divide your concentration. Often to the detriment of the most important task at the time....piloting a vehicle with more kinetic energy than a bullet.
            • The caller cannot see what you are dealing with, and merrily goes on about their side of the call.

              Which is why I've dropped my phone when I've really needed to consentrate, or I've asked the person if I could call them back because traffic is starting to get worse. I can prioritize just fine on the phone, it's the passengers that get me.
      • Passengers are somewhat more aware of current driving conditions than that disembodied voice on your cell phone.

  • Security (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:01AM (#4541556)
    Gives a whole new meaning to war driving.

    Pull up beside someone with a BlueTooth enabled phone and make a call.
  • I know in New York State, cell phones are banned while driving, however you ARE allowed to use a cell phone while driving if you have a hands free kit. Now, by their standards, anything with a headset is hands free, so the people who were already making bluetooth headsets get an added bonus, and no one is breaking any laws.

  • Uhhh (Score:1)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 )
    I don't get what they want to do here.

    Why is bluetooth built into a car any better from just using a normal wired or wireless hands-free set?

    That picture is messed up too. Maybe if that guy wasn't driving on the wrong side of the road there wouldn't be so many safety hazards.

  • Its all part of the plan (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The UK goverment wants to outlaw cars, seriously! look at the bullshit they have in place.

    • Speed cameras everywhere
    • Draconion speed limits (less than 35 km/h in some places)
    • Insane fuel tax, (costs around 75p/litre)
    • High Taxes
    • Speed bumps, chicanes, etc
    • Plans for congestion charges/road tolls in cities.


    and now this! Anus holes.
    • Speed cameras everywhere
      Where there are accidents.

      Draconion[sic] speed limits (less than 35 km/h in some places)
      Yes. Outside schools. Where the UK have one of the worst accident rates in Europe

      Insane fuel tax, (costs around 75p/litre)
      See below

      High Taxes
      You have a second world economy, you want first world services, you get high taxes. The UK is no longer a world power but tries to act like one. Get over it.

      Speed bumps, chicanes, etc
      With you there. Sensible countries like Germany use rumble strips.

      Plans for congestion charges/road tolls in cities.
      Have you ever been outside the UK, friend? To France, Italy, Switzerland or the places in the US where they have toll roads? It's hardly a UK disease.

      If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Pay French income tax, be unemployed in Germany, pay US health insurance rates, suffer Italian bureaucracy or Swiss anal retentiveness. But don't be so silly. The UK economy is still heavily auto-based, and governments ignore this at their peril.

    • Speaking as an American who visited the UK recently...

      Speed cameras everywhere

      Apparently they have to put signs up for the cameras, which makes them way way more bearable. In fact I would rather deal with that then all the unmarked police cars, and the cop hiding nooks in interstates we have here!

      Draconion speed limits (less than 35 km/h in some places)

      On the other hand they have pretty reasonable speed limits on their major highways, like 70 to 75mph, as opposed to here where there are 55mph limits in most places (at least in VA and MD!), but traffic tends to move at 70MPH!

      The UK also tends to enforce the "pass only on the right" laws while here "faster traffic stay left" is totally ignored. Insane fuel tax, (costs around 75p/litre)

      Every time I tried to work it out in My head it came to $4/gal or so. Pretty amazing. It makes the smaller cars thing more understandable. The Ford Fiesta is popular there. It was removed from the USA market because nobody wanted a 3cyl engine here.

      High Taxes

      That is a more generic thing then targeting autos. Their government provides more services, so it needs more money. Now I happen to beleve the government is the least efficient way to provide services, so that leads to higher costs then doing it privately. It may well lead to more universal service though. It also tends to lead to lower quality service for various economic reasons.

      Speed bumps, chicanes, etc

      What is/are "chicanes"?

      Plans for congestion charges/road tolls in cities

      Toll charges are actually a pretty good way to deal with congestion. Especially if the money from the tolls is applied to make underlying problem better (more roads, more clover leaves, fewer stop lights, or better public transportation). Of corse toll road money in most countries just goes into a general fund and ends up paying for totally unrelated things.

      I will note that the UK has way better public transportation then at the very least my part of the USA!

  • Sheesh!! there is a reason cell phones are banned. (Score:5, Funny)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:04AM (#4541577)
    This is like saying "oh no officer I haven't been drinking, I've just been using an experimental hallucinogen that isn't listed as an illegal drug". There is a reason cell phones are banned, merely escaping on a technicality is not solving the problem. The problem is lack of driver attention. Hands free sets dont solve that either.

    it should just be a crime to drive inattentively or to create diversions for yourself.

    • The risk from cell phones comes from the fact that you are talking: your mind is on the conversation, not the road. To really solve the problem, one would have to ban talking in cars. That could be... impractical.

      Perhaps education would make a difference. There's a lot of seat-belt propaganda, but I haven't seen any "god damn it, pay attention!" propaganda. Too bad, really.

    • it should just be a crime to drive inattentively or to create diversions for yourself.

      It is in the UK at least. The offence is called 'Driving without due care and attention'. The laws against cellphones were necessary because it had become common practice before anyone had chance to object, and so the law was necessary to send people a clear message that this wasn't on.

      As for the talking to passengers/hands free headsets issue, it's quite possible to hold a conversation when conditions are quiet. Then you would be driving with due care and attention, as long as you stop doing so when driving conditions change. It's all about balance and matching your behaviour to the situation. But fiddling about with a telephone handset is always going to be too great a distraction to be safe.

  • Safety Issue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neurostar ( 578917 ) <neurostarNO@SPAMprivon.com> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:05AM (#4541583)

    The issue of cell phones in cars is somewhat serious. I know a couple people who have been involved in accidents because they were talking on their cell phones and didn't have time to react. A person who is holding their phone up to their ear is more occupied and so is less likely to be able to respond in a timely fashon.

    Some form of headsets are a good idea. They require less attention to the phone and allow the driver to simply talk without worrying about holding the phone up. However, even those cheap $20 ones work just fine for this purpose.

    Using bluetooth for this makes bluetooth seem like an answer searching for a question. Using bluetooth would just be using hype to sell super-expensive headsets. I think those cheap one will suffice.

    Of course... I don't need any sort of headset. I am an excellent driver and I can concentrate on the road without a headset...

    neurostar
    • Of course... I don't need any sort of headset. I am an excellent driver and I can concentrate on the road without a headset...


      Of course you are. And every drunk driver that has ever been pulled over only had a couple beers and was sober enough to drive.

      Your overconfidence astounds and frightens me. With your attitude, you are probably more likely to get in an accident.

      Human beings are limited in the amount of information they can process at one time. I doubt you've done a controlled, double-blind study to prove you are superior to others in this respect. Perhaps you should read this [skepdic.com], this [skepdic.com], and this [skepdic.com].

      I really, really, really hope you were being sarcastic. If you were, please ignore/forgive my tirade. This still applies to any of you that think that you don't have to follow the stupid laws because you are obviously good drivers.
    • Of course... I don't need any sort of headset. I am an excellent driver and I can concentrate on the road without a headset...

      NOTE: That sounds a bit too much like a troll or sarcasm. But I'll reply anyway, since there are other people who honestly think like that...

      That's the exact kind of thinking that causes accidents in the first place "It will never happen to me, 'cause I'm so much better than...".
      Correction. You only think you're much better. This also isn't limited to driving either.

      I have a friend who likes to drive fast occationaly (seems out of character for him). He says he knows his limits. But he has never crashed. How can you know you limits untill you exceed them?

      Even if you have avoided accidents while taking on you cellphone, that dson't mean you will next time.

  • More on the spirit of the law... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by krinsh ( 94283 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:06AM (#4541588)
    How many of you have your kids quiet in the car while driving? How many of you don't like driving with passengers because... they are a distraction? ANYTHING that distracts you from the most immediate and important task - DRIVING - should, pardon the pun, take an immediate and complete back seat to anything but driving when you are on the road. Hundreds upon hundreds of accidents each year should drill that concept into you. It's no wonder I see more and more luxury-class vehicle accidents than I do even drunk driving incidents anymore. High speed and cellphones are the new alcohol intoxication of today's highways.

  • Hands free not safer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:09AM (#4541609)
    We should note studies such as this one that show hands free cell phones also cause dangerous distractions while driving.

    http://www.nsc.org/library/shelf/inincell.htm

    "In sum, we found that conversing on either a hand-held or hands-free cell phone led to significant decrements in simulated driving performance. We suggest that the cellular phone use disrupts performance by diverting attention to an engaging cognitive context other than the one immediately associated with driving.

    Our data suggest that legislative initiatives that restrict hand-held devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to reduce interference from the phone conversation, because the interference is, in this case, due to central attentional processes."

  • Hands-Free is Not a Panacea (Score:5, Informative)

    by herwin ( 169154 ) <{herwin} {at} {theworld.com}> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:19AM (#4541661) Homepage Journal
    Research indicates the problem with using a cell phone while driving is the distraction of conducting a phone conversation while also controlling a car, not the hands off the steering wheel. Drivers using a head-set experience the same increase in accident rate (to a level similar to driving drunk) as drivers using a cell-phone. See this legal discussion [clarkhill.com].
    • I know that I don't like to even talk when I'm driving when I'm in a confusing area. I've run a red light on a busy san francisco street because I was babbling when I should have been noticing the stoplight. Of course, it was in a really funky location and I wasn't even aware it existed until I was flying through it, so this is as much SF's fault as mine. Of course, if I'd have hit someone, it would have been a thin defense.

      Some people are empty-headed buffoons (or bimbos) who will just say anything that comes into their head. Most of them can probably carry on a conversation while driving without any lessening of their already minimal driving skills, because they're not really thinking about what they're saying. The rest of us should make driving our first priority. Sure, all of us should, but those people will be bad drivers no matter what, and it'll look better in court if they were talking on the phone and you were just driving and minding your own business. If I'm going to get in an accident, I'd rather it's with a well-insured idiot than anything else.

  • Barking up the wrong tree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:22AM (#4541677) Homepage
    Legislation banning the use of mobile phones in cars is spurring car manufactures to look for alternatives such as Bluetooth.

    Gee...it's too bad their vision is sp clouded by dollar signs that they can't see what the customer *really* wants.

    Why do people talk on cellphones? Because they want to be more productive...whether it's just chatting with a friend about whatever, or talking to the spouse about what to pick up at the store, or getting your ass chewed by the boss for missing a deadline...Cellphones are useful because they allow us to be productive during time when life is otherwise wasted.

    Hold your screams for a minute.

    I attend college around five hours from my hometown. Whenever me and my girlfriend decide we want to go home for the weekend, that 48 hour weekend is chopped down to 38 hours, since we lose 10 hours in travel time. That's time that I can't do anything useful with...study, read, play a game, nothing.

    Perhaps automobile manufacturers should get past the marketing hype and actually market a feature that customers want and have been sociologically clamoring for the last decade - Self-driving cars. I would easily pay double the price of a current car model to get a car that drives without my assistance or attention. Think about how much time you lose in a year to driving. You could be working in the car on the way to the office and counting it as your work time. You could be spending time with your family while you're on the way to see the parents. You could be watching a movie while you're in the middle of a boring ten-hour drive to San Antonio or whatever.

    This is a really stupid move on the part of car manufacturers, as it shows them trying to solve customer needs on the path of least resistance. I think they're approaching the problem from the wrong end, though. We have the technology to solve the problem...and with economies 'round the world in the crapper, this would be an *ideal* way to jumpstart the manufacturing sector. Self-driving cars would reduce insurance premiums, make roadways safer, and increase quality of life. How many people do you know that would instantly go out and buy a new car to get this wasted time back? I know I would...
    • I strongly agree that we need self driving cars. Not only would it save time for all of us, but potentially it could be much safer. It would also be better environmentally because traffic, under automated control, could flow better. Also autos would be driven for better mileage, and if the system were safe enough, I might be able to give up my big, heavy SUV.

      But I don't think the manufacturers should be flamed on this. It takes a cooperative effort between highway designers, very high tech research, the legal system and the manufacturers.

      In other words, in the absence of some MAJOR breakthrough in AI, this will probably require a private/government joint venture. Most likely, the breakthroughs will come from the evil military industrial complex (TM).
    • Why don't just just catch a bus or train?

    • Re:Barking up the wrong tree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hanno ( 11981 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:57AM (#4541839) Homepage
      Perhaps automobile manufacturers should get past the marketing hype and actually market a feature that customers want and have been sociologically clamoring for the last decade - Self-driving cars.

      It's called a railway train and it's been around since a few decades. A subway and a bus also does what you look for.

      Now I know that the railway system in Northern America stinks, but here in Europe, you'd be surprised how good it actually is. Fast, modern, not too pricy (although I wouldn't mind a price cut).

      I'm 30, I live in Hamburg, I have a small company, I travel a lot within Germany (to both big and small cities), I have a driver's license but I don't own a car. I don't expect to buy a car at least within the next five years.

      Trains do everything I need for distant travels. The Hamburg tram and bus system does everything I want for local travel except when I have to transport some heavy object e.g. furniture. That's when I rent a car or ask a friend for help.

      And when train, tram, subway and bus don't reach the place I want to go to, I hop on a taxi.

      So far, the costs are much lower than owning a car in Germany (fuel, insurances, maintenace, etc.), but I guess that owning a car is significantly cheaper in the US, so it's tough to compare.

      That's time that I can't do anything useful with...study, read, play a game, nothing.

      That's exactly why I like not having a car. Leave the driving to someone else, I just work a little on my laptop or bring my pillow and rest a few hours.

      market a feature that customers want and have been sociologically clamoring for the last decade

      Do customers want this and did they clamor for it for the last decade? Because if they did, the bigger US cities would have a much better public transportation system, Amtrak wouldn't suck and Greyhound buses wouldn't be the poor man's ride they are today.

      (I know what I talk about. I had a 8 week trip through the US on a Greyhound ticket. It was fun and the bus system isn't actually bad, but no average US citizen would want to see as an alternative to having a car.)
      • Trains are great for Germany, but the US is just too big to justify the costs of adding railways to every town. The trains themselves aren't exactly cheap either.

        Subways and busses cannot and should not replace automobiles. You're making the assumption that there are established routes to my destination. If I want to make a 5 hour drive through the desert on the weekend, are you suggesting I should pay a Taxi driver to drive 10 hours (including his return trip)?

        To be fair, the costs of public transportation being cheaper than automobiles in Europe is partly because your fuel taxes subsidize public transportation. Is it really cost efficient to move an empty train or bus?
        • If I want to make a 5 hour drive through the desert on the weekend, are you suggesting I should pay a Taxi driver to drive 10 hours (including his return trip)?

          It, of course, depends on your exact circumstances but when I go back to the US for holidays I rarely need to rent a car despite always visiting a lot of friends in a lot of places. Amtrak and Greyhound aren't as good as European transport but they are certainly usable. It is often a question of mentality.

          Is it really cost efficient to move an empty train or bus?

          The original poster was from Germany and I have to say that German trains are usually a pain in the ass because they are too full rather than too empty. Those of us that forget to make seat reservations often end up on the floor.

          Here in Switzerland I rarely have to do without a seat but trains are also rarely empty. Seems to be about the right balance. And I pay only about $1600 for a yearly pass for all public transport (boats, trams, trains, busses) throughout the country. Add to that the amount of extra work/reading I get done while in transit and life is good.

          Devon

          • It is often a question of mentality.

            That's true. Not using a car in the US makes people think of you as an odd person... As I originally said, Greyhound is seen as a poor man's ride, not as an alternative to using a car.

            I have to say that German trains are usually a pain in the ass because they are too full

            True, but then again I usually travel alone and there's always _one_ seat free for me.

            Same, btw., with Greyhound buses in the US. During my US trip, I often got an earlier ride because the bus was waiting for just _one_ more seat to be filled, but everybody who wanted to take the ride was there with a group or family.

            Those of us that forget to make seat reservations often end up on the floor

            There is now a new price system for German trains that rewards people with rebates if they buy a ticket and reserve a seat early. I guess they are trying to make things better in that regard. I don't like the new price system, though, because I usually decide spontaniously when I take a train, not 7 days in advance.

            I pay only about $1600 for a yearly pass for all public transport (boats, trams, trains, busses) throughout the country.

            Oh, I envy you! If they offered a all-inclusive ticket as cheap as that here in Germany, it'd be heaven for someone like me.

        • Trains are great for Germany, but the US is just too big to justify the costs of adding railways to every town.

          True. However, you could link up most decent sized cities and hit 90% of the population for significantly less. It's mainly a matter of social organization

          The trains themselves aren't exactly cheap either.

          They'd be cheaper if we adopted similar requirements to the rest of the world so that we can just buy trains instead of getting them custom built.

          If I want to make a 5 hour drive through the desert on the weekend, are you suggesting I should pay a Taxi driver to drive 10 hours (including his return trip)?

          Rent a car. Duhh.

          To be fair, the costs of public transportation being cheaper than automobiles in Europe is partly because your fuel taxes subsidize public transportation. Is it really cost efficient to move an empty train or bus?

          And over here, the massive amount of road construction (which does nothing toimprove traffic) subsidizes cars. If you buy a $20k car and finance it, then drive it for 5 years before selling it for $8k, you're paying around $2500/yr plus another thousand plus for fuel and maintenance, which works out to around $300/mo. plus whatever portion of your taxes goes to support infrastructure. Only question is how much does a train cost, per person?

        • Oh, please don't exaggerate. Of course, I never take 5 hour taxi trips. I'm sure that there is a train, bus or even plane ride to a location close to your destination. And if there isn't, you can always take a rental car.

          But again, I'm talking from my position, in Germany, where I can reach every place I want to go to using these means of transportation. If I lived in a remote provincial town without train or bus connection to start with, I'd be the first to buy a car, sure.

          Trouble is, trains and buses are empty in the US because they aren't attractive to use. The Amtrak railways are in a poor condition, the trains aren't well maintained and often late, all this scares aways those who know the luxury of having a car.

          And the question about tax-subsidized public transportation is of course wether the lack of US taxes on cars and fuel is fair, anyway. US fuel prices are ridiculously low, compared to the rest of the world. A few years back there was an estimate that fuel in Germany would have to cost about 2.60 Euros per Liter to acommodate the secondary costs of its use - pollution, roads, etc.

      • I'm 30, I live in Hamburg, I have a small company, I travel a lot within Germany (to both big and small cities), I have a driver's license but I don't own a car. I don't expect to buy a car at least within the next five years.

        I'm 27, I live in Iowa (USA), I have a corperate job 9 miles from my house, I travel alot to Iowa City (60 miles away) and Clinton (30 miles away) (both big and small cities), I have a driver's license but could not survive without owning a car. I don't expect to ever go back to not having a car within the next five years.

        In america the only viable alternative to having a car is to have someone with a car give you a ride. It's disgusting how dependant upon them we are.
        • I live on the north end of Chicago, and work and go to school downtown (roughly 5 miles south). I don't have a car had have no need for one. Very few of my friends have cars, and those that do don't use them to commute. This is, of course, because Chicago is one of the rare American cities that made it through the auto age with a functional transit system. I spend my half-hour commute on the el reading books, napping, watching the city go by out the window, or just watching the other people get on and off. Whatever I feel like doing that day. I also feel that my ride home gives me time to recharge, so I have energy to do other things than sit behind a television.

          Believe it or not, there are still real communities in the US, it's not all suburbian wasteland. Of course, even the Chicago suburbs are served by Pace buses and the Metra (commuter rail). Fewer than half of my suburbian friends drive into town, most take the Metra, which is both faster than driving during rush hour and less stressful.

          When I go back to my hometown (Springfield IL) to visit my family, which I do about six or seven times a year, I take Amtrak. Yeah, Amtrak is a pain sometimes, they are frequently late (mostly because of freight interference), but it's still a hell of alot better than driving. I usually spend the first hour of the three hour trip sleeping (Amtrak seats are quite comfortable, with alot of leg room), then get out my laptop and do whatever I feel like, maby just play nethack, but usually programming or tweaking the system, or I read or get something to eat in the dining car.

          My point is that the whole "The US needs cars" thing is a bunch of bullshit. If this country would properly fund its public transit systems (and quit subsidizing those suburbian SUV drivers), we could have systems every bit as good as those in Europe. If we'd quit zoning to enforce sprawl (minimum setbacks and parking around stores, not allowing stores into residential areas (as an aside, the store from which I buy milk is a two minute walk from my apartment), minimum street width, etc) we could have real, living communities such as which now exist in a few isolated areas of cities like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco.

          There's nothing intrisic about this country that says that it has to be an auto-suburbian wasteland, just people like the people in this thread who are too close-minded to think that there might be a better way to live.

    • As a note to all the people suggesting alternative forms of transportation...

      In my area, there are none. The only Greyhound route that goes remotely close to where we live (which is a rather populated and rapidly growing area I might add) terminates an hour east of where we're from. It's also $120 per person for all of five hours of travel.

      Similarly, the Amtrak routes are prohibitive. We'd have to drive 90 minutes to get to either of the train stations, and even then the train stops more than an hour away. The timings don't match up in a way such that we can jump trains to catch one that goes across the coast where we live (The evening train runs too late). And it's still around $100 per person round-trip. Also, this is Amtrak we're talking about. The last time I took the train was two years ago when my car got stolen. They may not even be running that route anymore, given their incredible funds shortage.

      I live in a college town with an average enrollment of 17,000 students. There's another college less than half an hour from here with another 2500 students, giving us a college population in this area of nearly 20,000. Also, the population of the towns and cities in this area is collectively over 75,000, not counting the transient college population. There's little reason for us to have virtually no long-distance transportation to/from this area...but hey. There it is.

  • This is great!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:30AM (#4541710) Homepage
    While riding my bike I've been nearly hit twice by drivers talking on their cell phones and not concentrating on the road. But now if people use Bluetooth technology to transmit their voice to their cellphones instead of talking directly on the cellphone, I'll be perfectly safe!

    What other loopholes will people try to get away with next?

    Sorry officer, I didn't mean to go through that intersection and run over that biker, but according to my color sensor that street light had an RGB value of (253, 0, 0) so it wasn't fully red.

  • The trouble is not found in the handset (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brother Fjordhr ( 468596 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:31AM (#4541712)
    The trouble with cell phone safety is not in the nature of the handset (or hands free set) it is in the conditioned response to phone calls. All this article seems to be pushing is another hands free approach to cell phones. This article http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm reports that, "hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones."

    The point of this article is that, "Reaction and stopping times were much slower Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research."

    This article http://http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/n ews/2001/01/25/Consumers/cellphones_study010125 provides this quote on the issue

    "The bandwidth of the brain is actually quite limited," says Dr. John Vavrick, the research psychologist in charge of the study.

    "Time sharing and multi-tasking does not come easily to the human brain."

    The study used 41 drivers and gave each a series of tests to perform while answering questions through a speaker in the car.

    Researchers found the driver's mental state was equally affected whether he or she was using a hands-free phone or not.

    This is just a small sampling of the articles of the danger presented by using a cellphone while driving. The risk just isn't worth it, hang up and drive!.
    • "The bandwidth of the brain is actually quite limited,"

      For some more than others. Sadly, the more bandwidth limited are the least likely to realize this.
      • For some more than others. Sadly, the more bandwidth limited are the least likely to realize this.

        Actually, I'm a low bandwidth person, and I'm very aware of it. What I mean is that while I am IMHO brilliant, my brain has noticeably less I/O bandwidth than most people. I guess more of my brain functions got allocated to high level processing, and less to DSP-like tasks.

        This bugs the hell out of my wife because I just can't effectively talk or listen while I'm trying to do or think about something else. She thinks that I'm intentionally tuning her out when often I wasn't even aware that I should be tuning her in.

        Even though I have excellent hearing as rated by hearing tests, I've always had a hard time picking out conversations in noisy environments such as bars. Not enough noise rejection circutry.

        Since cellphone calls usually have poor quality and lots of noise, I often find it hard to decode what the other person is saying in real time even if I'm doing nothing else. A big problem with cellphones and driving in general is that it seems to take up much more of your brain's low level I/O functions to recover the conversation signal out of a crappy cellphone speaker than it does to just talk to a passenger normally.

        I am a good driver, so I think that I have plenty of geometry and physics processing ability. It seems to me, though, once your low level audio processing has failed to successfully decode the message, the brain can pull in cycles (inefficently) from higher level areas. You use more of the language and logic processing centers to error correct what you're hearing at a higher semantic layer. I think that this can starve the portion of your logic ability that's needed to support the low level driving tasks.

        Basically, regardless of how the handset works, I think cellphones will be dangerous for driving until they significantly clean up the audio quality.

    • Moderators PLEASE read all the posts! This should be moded down as REDUNDANT as the same point has been made MULTIPLE TIMES (and I'm sick of replying to it!)

    • If you cannot deal with a hands free set, then you should never drive, period, because you probably can't drive and talk to a passenger at the same time, or change the radio station while driving, or anything else.
  • This is another case where the wording of a law defeats common sense.

    For instance, in most places there are signs (and often laws) forbidding the use of radio transmitters near explosives. If there aren't, it's just common sense. But when a local high school had a bomb threat, all the teachers and reporters were running around the scene talking on their cellphones. A local cop tried to remind them that cellphones *are* radio transmitters, but for the most part the citizenry didn't understand why the rule should apply, because (after all) it's a phone, not a transmitter!

    • But when a local high school had a bomb threat, all the teachers and reporters were running around the scene talking on their cellphones.

      Care to explain to us why using a cell phone near explosives is dangerous? Perhaps for the same reason they can bring down airplanes?

  • ...when someone is successfully sued for a lot of money for causing an accident while yammering on the g.d. thing.

    Using a cell phone while driving is akin to driving shit-faced drunk: there have been several experiments that have shown this.

    You drive drunk and cause an accident, your ass is toast.

    It won't be long 'til you drive chatting on the phone and cause an accident, your ass is toast.

    And IMO, the sooner the better. Endanger yourself if you wish, but leave me out of it!

  • If you think that cell phone and driving mix well. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @12:03PM (#4541873)
    ...try this.

    Crank up your fave FPS or driving simulator. Get really into it. Mark down how soon you crash/get killed out.

    Now call someone and try to have a meaningful talk on the hone with them while playing the same game. Now see how fast you get killed out.

    Behind the wheel of your car, there is no "reset".
  • Is a direct performance comparison between
    Drinking & Driving,
    Talking & Driving, and
    Elderly Driving.

    I have no reason to believe that a person headed home after 2-3 beers at the bar is any more dangerous on the road than a guy blabbing on the phone. The main difference is that the drinker gets his face smeared in the dirt when he gets caught. Our society just learns to treat the drinker as the criminal more-so than the equally challenged Elderly driver or cell-phone user. Be honest with yourself. Who's really more dangerous behind the wheel?

    In my opinion, what is really needed is some sort of GPS (or simliar) based autopilot feature. This is probably at least 10+ years away, but if used widely, I'd predict to see a 95+ % decrease in Fatalities, lower insurance rates, Reduced Commuting times, less maintainance costs (less stop & go driving), improved fuel economy/costs,
    and less stress while traveling. There wouldn't be any reason to prevent people from using Cell phones, watching movies, surfing the web, or even cracking open a beer while traveling.

    If everybody had a guidance system (one that communicates with other vehicles), there would no longer be a need for Stop signs, traffic lights, or maybe even street lights. Heck, it might even eliminate the need to own a vehicle - maybe you could "page" a nearby transporter to come pick you up right by the front door - not at the far side of the parking lot.

    Somebody work on this. You've got at least one eager customer waiting.

    • But where would I put my witty bumper stickers?

    • In my opinion, what is really needed is some sort of GPS (or simliar) based autopilot feature. [...] If everybody had a guidance system (one that communicates with other vehicles), there would no longer be a need for Stop signs, traffic lights, or maybe even street lights.

      That's nice in theory, and I'm not saying it can never be done, but how's a GPS-based autopilot going to deal with:

      • Pedestrians
      • Other road users (bicycles, mopeds, tractors, horse & buggy*, tractors*, et cetera)
      • Animals
      • Road closures
      • Road surface irregularity
      • Other unexpected obstructions

      People, while not perfect, have a much better heuristic to handle real-world situations than any program I've yet seen.

      * Yep, see both of these types of vehicles 'round here.

  • Perhaps this will mean that I will be able to buy a cell phone that can talk to my PDA without needing all the conversion kit wires. That alone would be enough to get me to upgrade my phone itself.
  • Are laws against cell-phones in cars really so poorly worded that they can easily be gotten around by changing the method by which the signals are transmitted? Somebody needs to get bitchslapped.
  • I'm going to play devils advocate here. First off, millions of people use phones on the road without a problem. Second, it's become so engrained, no amount of policing action is going to make much of a difference. I do it, my mom does it, everyone does it. There's a difference between using a phone in 5pm rush hour traffic and at 10pm on a empty freeway. I see cops driving with phones on all the time here.

    Given the above, it makes since to find ways to make this a little safer. Yes, you can't navigate a cone course and talk on the phone. I autoslalom and I doubt you could listen to the radio and do that. It makes sense that you might NOT use the phone in those situations, or tell the other party you have to stop talking for a second (or just stop).

    Lawmakers can do what they want, it's not going to stop anyone. It would be impossible to tell someone is talking on the phone if they're on handsfree anyhow.

    Laws and phones do not make up the primary problem: Lack of driver skill and attention to the road, and bad driving habits. Most people have no idea how to do basic emergency avoidance maneuvers, or drive vehicles which make those maneuvers life threatening or impossible.

    • Am I to assume that your proposed solution to drunk driving is better driver training? After all, millions of people drive drunk without a problem. Given that, it makes sense to find ways to make this a little safer?
      [As has been pointed out already in this discussion, driving under the influence of a cell phone is just as impairing as driving while drunk, so the analogy is quite valid.]
      • Well.. being the advocate, millions of people use cell phones every day on the road without any incident whatsoever. By your logic, millions could drive intoxicated?

        Comparing a cell phone to intoxication is invalid. The cell phone does not affect reflexes, perceptions, inhibitions, and judgement. I can through the phone on the floor (and I have) to handle a traffic situtation. You cannot chose to do same under the influence of alcohol. There is a difference between using a phone with no traffic on a freeway and driving on same freeway drunk.

        You must remember - millions of people do this every day without incident. Millions of people DO NOT drive drunk (at least not in my country!).

Slashdot Top Deals

Heard that the next Space Shuttle is supposed to carry several Guernsey cows? It's gonna be the herd shot 'round the world.

Close