Wireless Invention Jams Teen Drivers' Cell Calls 232
alphadogg writes "University of Utah researchers have invented technology that could come to be embraced by teenagers with the same enthusiasm they have for curfews and ID checks. And like those things, it could save their lives. Key2SafeDriving technology uses RFID or Bluetooth wireless capabilities to issue signals from car keys to cell phones to prevent drivers from talking on their phones or texting while driving. A company called Accendo LC of Kaysville, Utah has licensed the technology and is working to build it into commercial devices that could be on the market next year. The company is sorting out how to bring the technology to market, but one possibility is that it would be made available through cell phone service companies and could also be tied in with insurance companies, which might offer discounts for users."
Jammed! (Score:5, Funny)
And it's raspberry!
Re:Jammed! (Score:4, Funny)
Only one man dares give me the raspberry: Lonestar!
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I foresee the sales of tracphone and other pay as you go or prepaid phones increasing.
The teens will just have to remember to not use the unlocked normal phone when calling home.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS! Tracphone at Walmart = $20. Airtime isn't all that expensive either. Parent who purchase this = poor parents who can't instill responsibility in their children.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardhack: take said Jamming key to local Hardware store and have a copy made.
Hotswap: Ask friend in car for their cellphone.
Corrupted information: Hang up on every call from your parents and tell them "I don't know why I didn't get your call at 3:00 AM asking where I was didn't get through, must be that stupid key I'm using.."
Re: (Score:2)
Great, now we're going to have people texting with their arms outside the window.
Just dictate your message to your friend hanging on to the roof with his cell phone.
Title is misleading (Score:2, Informative)
The invention does not jam the cell it activates software. This is entirely different as a signal that jams the cell would cause the cell battery to run down early and will also disrupt nearby driver's conversations and signals. Not to mention jamming would be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
a signal that jams the cell would cause the cell battery to run down early
This is a Bluetooth device. It will also cause the cell battery to run down early.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just realized, they don't need to make it a Bluetooth device paired to the car key at all. They just need to attach the phone to the key physically so that it can't be in use as a phone when its in the ignition. Tie them together with a short security chain and provide a little place in the dash to put the phone so it isn't hanging from the ignition. Need to answer/make a call or send a text message? You'll have to pull it from the ignition first.
No transmitters, no loss of charge, and you're less likely
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Bonus points if the phone automatically enters hands-free mode when the key is in the ignition.
Why not apply this feature to everyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus man, it's not like talking about some sort of vehicular Panopticon. It's an optional device for parents that prevents your kid from calling non-emergency numbers while driving.
Why don't we go the *other* way and make no effort to ensure safety whatsoever. No drivers license, no age requirement, no laws prohibiting drinking while driving either. Then you can happily drive your libertarian ass all around town, and we can all take bets on how long you'll survive.
Re: (Score:2)
The mod system here is broken. We don't have a "-1 Dumbass".
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, maybe it depends how we define "bad" and "good" but I think you'll find that the bad parents won't buy this device, and generally don't give a shit about what their kids do while driving.
However, I can see a good parent using this to complement their parenting skills. Every parent needs to strike the right balance between giving their kid enough freedom to learn for themselves while acknowledging the need to restrict choices where the consequences are too severe to learn from (dead people don't
If this is such a wonderful invention (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not do what r2rknot said and mandate it for everyone? I live at the intersection of 2 roads that each go directly to the main entrance of 3 of the most populous central florida colleges and I find myself shouting "hang up and drive" almost exclusively at people who look to be in their mid 30s at least. Then again it IS a lot easier to just blame everything bad that happens on the road on teens and their terrible teen driving with teen cellphone use and teen teening teenager teen teening teenagers...
It o
Re: (Score:2)
mandatory "here watch these gory movies" classes that make up drivers ed
I've never seen "Blood Flows Red on the Highway" or any of the like.
But I do remember those commercials reminding people to keep the seat-belts on their watermelons ("...or just lying there, stunned in the road" [squish]).
Hey, that reminds me: I don't have the movie Moving Violations (1985) [imdb.com] in my DVD library yet.
Unsinkable (Score:3, Funny)
Powered on how? (Score:5, Informative)
So the key sheath what sends the signal... meaning that it's going to be extra expensive to lose/break/etc?
It seems to depend on a lot of factors that aren't going to go over very well:
a) You need the key
b) You need a supported phone
c) You need your phone tied to the key
d) The auto-response feature won't work against landlines or phones that don't support texting (in the ad it shows a text message).
Overall, it generally looks really fucking irritating. I avoid the phone when possible if I'm in the car, but there can be reasons to make a call when stopped etc (running late) or to receive calls in an emergency.
The question of "what if it's a business call" and the answer of "it'll text the caller that you're driving" isn't going to go over very well, nor it is going to when your mother calls 5-min in to say "your dad is in the hospital" while you're headed out to a 4h drive...
Re: (Score:2)
Business folk need to get the fuck over themselves. When you're on the road you have a responsibility to everyone on it. Your job doesn't change that, no matter how important you think you are.
Work on Suits? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
useless & easy to circumvent (Score:5, Insightful)
So the biggest problem I see with this is that it essentially requires the driver to voluntarily use a matching key and cell phone that are sold as a set.
If the driver were going to voluntarily not talk on the cell phone, they could just not do it and save the money.
If you give this to a teenager and think this means they won't be texting or talking on a cell phone while driving, you need to spend more time with teenagers. As soon as there's another person with a cell phone in the car with them, they can borrow that cell phone to talk or text. If they're more devious (and have the money), they'll just get themselves another cell phone. If they really want to talk or text while driving, they will. This isn't going to stop them unless they're all alone in the car and very conscientious to begin with.
Giving it to adults as some sort of insurance incentive? That's a laugh. Adults are even worse than kids about working the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:useless & easy to circumvent (Score:4, Informative)
Scenario 1: Driver is conscientious, doesn't use phone while driving anyway. - Key not needed, save the money.
Scenario 2: Driver is tech savvy, turns off bluetooth on phone while driving. - Driver can't use headset, driver can and will still make calls. Key not needed, save the money.
Scenario 3: Driver is smarter than a rock. - Driver copies key, uses bluetooth headset and makes calls anyway. Key not needed, save the money.
Scenario 4: Driver has friends. - Driver borrows phone, can't use bluetooth headset, makes calls anyway. Key not needed, save the money.
Scenario 5: Driver is psychopath. - Driver goes on a rampage because of parental failures, kills people randomly until driver is killed. Key not needed, save the money.
In summary, save the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving it to adults as some sort of insurance incentive? That's a laugh.
If the insurance deduction is greater than the cost of the key + phone + service, who wouldn't do it?
Keep the special phone attached to a car charger and forget about it.
Re: (Score:2)
So the biggest problem I see with this is that it essentially requires the driver to voluntarily use a matching key and cell phone that are sold as a set.
If the driver were going to voluntarily not talk on the cell phone, they could just not do it and save the money.
The driver doesn't have any choice in the matter, because the key, car and phone all belong to his or her parents, and THEY think it's worth the money to ensure their kid focuses on driving, rather than on a discussion who's going out with who.
As a parent of teens who will soon be driving, I see a lot of value in this.
Re: (Score:2)
The driver doesn't have any choice in the matter, because the key, car and phone all belong to his or her parents
Teen, to hardware store drone: "Hi, I need to get another key cut. Oh, that extra blob on the end there? It was for some useless car alarm that the previous owner had. Hasn't worked for ages. Don't worry about it, just a normal key will do."
Re: (Score:2)
The driver doesn't have any choice in the matter, because the key, car and phone all belong to his or her parents
Teen, to hardware store drone: "Hi, I need to get another key cut. Oh, that extra blob on the end there? It was for some useless car alarm that the previous owner had. Hasn't worked for ages. Don't worry about it, just a normal key will do."
It's much easier to find a copied key than it is to catch them at texting while driving.
Imperfect != valueless.
Cheaper to have another key made? (Score:2)
"If they're more devious (and have the money), they'll just get themselves another cell phone."
Are the cars using an ignition system that *requires* one of these special keys to even start the vehicle? If not, and it just happens that the key the folks gave me disables the phone, but a *different* key won't disable the phone, the teen will just spend $5 to have another, old-fashioned key made.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which is exactly the point. This device is being marketed to people who have no understanding of teenagers--Parents afraid that their little snowflake is going to roll the car while doing 200 in a school zone while on a conference call between their pimp and coke dealer on their way to an animal sacrifice while texting an elderly priest to meet them
How Many Kids (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn kids... (Score:2)
An alternative suggestion (Score:3, Funny)
Do parents even do that anymore?
Re:An alternative suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)
Another question is: Can I trust your kids? Seeing as we're on the same road and all.
Re:An alternative suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could, you know, trust your kids.
Trust isn't a boolean. There are many things I trust my kids with, but there are other things I don't. In particular, I don't trust my kids to always show good judgment, ESPECIALLY where their friends are involved. The classic parent question "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" is so classic precisely because the honest answer to that question is often "Yes!".
Another area where kids' judgment is often poor is around their own safety. Most kids have only a vague sense of their own mortality and fragility, at best. As a result, they often run risks that adults would not. Worse, kids are new drivers, and new drivers often underestimate the difficulty of operating a vehicle. The controls are simple, the traffic rules aren't bad... how hard can it be? It takes a few years to truly understand in your bones that brief inattention can combine with someone else's mistake to KILL YOU.
Yet another issue is that kids are generally very impatient, and will often make foolish decisions because they want something NOW.
15-17 year-old kids driving with cellphones combine all of these in one dangerous package. Talking to their friends is just about the most important thing in the world to them, and they want to know NOW whether or not Marinda thinks Jaden is hot, and they're completely certain of their ability to talk or even text while driving, never mind the fact that they've only got a few dozen hours behind the wheel.
Now, I can tell my kids until I'm blue in the face the reasons they should not use their phone while driving, and I can even order them not to, threaten to take their phone and/or car privileges away if I ever find out they did it, etc., but none of that will work, because of one simple fact:
They think I'm wrong.
Moreover, they think I'm stupid, that I don't get it, and that I don't understand them. The same thing virtually every teenager who has ever lived has thought of their parents.
In general, that's actually a good thing. Questioning and even disregarding your parents' opinions and advice is an important part of growing up, of establishing your own identity and learning to think for yourself. I fully expect that my kids are going to disregard much of what I say (though it still irks me), and to a large extent I'm perfectly happy that they're going to make mistakes and bear the consequences of those mistakes.
There are, however, exceptions. Areas in which I do NOT want to allow them to make the mistakes they want to make, because I know what the consequences are.
For example, I don't want them making mistakes that may kill them dead. There's no chance to learn from such mistakes. Likewise, even though they're survivable, I really don't want my son to get hooked on crack, or my daughter to get knocked up (or my son to knock up some other girl). The consequences are too severe, and the lesson can be learned by observing others' mistakes. No need to make every possible error.
Should I simply trust my children not to make foolish decisions that may kill them or get them addicted or pregnant? Statistically, it's pretty clear that's a BAD IDEA. Instead, I keep a leash on them. I know what sorts of parties they go to, and what sorts of friends they keep. I know what kind of boys my daughter goes out with and, more important, I impose curfews and other limitations intended to reduce the opportunities for getting carried away. I could go on... these are relatively old problems and the solutions are well-understood.
Cellphones and cars... that's a new one. And unlike crack or sex, it's something that's unlikely to progress slowly, with plenty of warning signs I can key in on. It only takes once.
So, I like this idea. I think it's a useful tool. Do all kids need it? Of course not. Good parents know their kids, know which ones will ignore them and which ones will listen, and act accordingly. In my case, one of these systems would be a waste of money for my son, but if they're on the market I WILL buy one for my daughter.
Re: (Score:2)
"I know what sorts of parties they go to, and what sorts of friends they keep. I know what kind of boys my daughter goes out with"
I hate to be so negative, but no. You really don't.
Yes, I do. Obviously I have no control over who they talk to or what they do at school, but their actions there are fairly constrained by the environment and I have a great deal of control over what happens outside of school. And I even see spillover from what happens at school. It's really not all that hard to keep tabs on what they're doing if you talk to them, ask questions and pay attention to what they say.
I suggest you watch the movie "Kids" by Larry Clark.
I've seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know, according to ever childless a-hole on slashdot, that if I were a better parent that this wouldn't have happened. Thank you for your sage advice. Now go have a kid, wait about 20 year
Too bad... (Score:2)
The tag "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" is so right. Too bad we can't mod tags up.
Cell phones can be used for emergencies.
Worse yet, this does NOT solve any problem. If teens aren't smart enough to not use a cell phone from driving, maybe they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
Why just teen drivers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being in control of a car during rush hour traffic demands my full attention, sure. Being in control of a car while cruising down a lonesome highway at 55 MPH with no other cars in sight does not demand my full attention. Which is why I don't call or text in the former case, and frequently do in the latter.
Stupid (Score:2)
One obvious and MUCH MUCH safer implementation. Would be a phone log, one that added a note beside the call if it occurred on a road. Jamming or blocking calls is stupid and dangerous.
If it's Bluetooth-based... (Score:2)
...What's to stop anybody from just un-syncing their phone?
Great Idea!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So if she is carjacked and raped, at least the assailant won't be burning up her Roll Over minutes!!
Re:Great Idea!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA, 911 would be enabled.
911, but not Mom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if 911 is allowed, other highly relevant calls cannot be made.
This is like speed bumps: sounds good, until the ambulance or cop can't get to you in time because they have to go from 50 to 5 MPH periodically in the area, or can't move because they bottomed out the vehicle after hitting one at 50 after not seeing it.
How about facing the reality that bad things happen to stupid people doing stupid things, and teach kids to not be stupid? Proactively blocking their every move because they might do something dumb does not turn them into responsible adults.
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't teach stupid people not to be stupid. They can't learn in the first place, that's why they're stupid!
Complete and utter bullshit! (Score:3, Informative)
They can learn! Everybody can learn!
People are "stupid", because they
You can solve all of them trough
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about facing the reality that bad things happen to stupid people doing stupid things, and teach kids to not be stupid?
I'm all for it. Stupid people should face the consequences of their actions. Teens who talk on their cells while driving are about as stupid as they come. Let 'em have it... I just don't want to be in the oncoming lane when they finally learn their lesson.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My perception has been a little different. I've found EVERYONE to drive like idiots lately. I even have idiot moments.
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:4, Informative)
You can do the math - teens are stupendously bad drivers [ca.gov] compared to much of the rest of the population. Fortunately due to the financial component - it's not hard to collect a lot of information on accidents.
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah.. those stupid teens.. because adults never drive stupid.
Teens are a group of people who have a very high rate of accidents compared to the general population. Society has no problem restricting the driving privileges of other high risk groups: the elderly, the vision impaired, and the drunk. What's so different about singling out one more high-risk group and protecting ourselves from the collateral damage they are more likely to cause?
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have no problem curbing the elderly? You're full of shit, and every wreck with them getting confused and barreling through a farmer's market proves it. Every time AARP shoots down a law requiring not revocation on age, but TESTING after a certain age to ensure safety proves you wrong.
They go after teens because teens have no rights or lobbies. Other groups fight like hell because they're made of people that have lobbies, money, power, and rights. Teens just take the brunt of everybody's shit because they have no rights or money.
That's not to say they're not bad drivers; they often are. It's just that claiming there's some kind of fairness on the issue is pretty myopic.
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time AARP shoots down a law requiring not revocation on age, but TESTING after a certain age to ensure safety proves you wrong.
All it proves is that the elderly turnout on election day dwarfs that of any other age group.
Teens just take the brunt of everybody's shit because they have no rights or money.
Teens are also one of a few groups that everyone has been a member of at one point. You'd think with all of us former teens, still scarred from society's relentless abuse, would rally around the cause of eliminating teenage oppression. But we don't. You know why? Most of us look back at how unbelievably stupid, reckless and irresponsible we were as teenagers. With age, comes some perspective.
It's just that claiming there's some kind of fairness on the issue is pretty myopic.
I never said it was fair, only justified.
Re: (Score:2)
If the elderly are such bad drivers, why do they get such low insurance rates? I'm pretty sure all those actuaries know what they're doing.
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:4, Interesting)
All it proves is that the elderly turnout on election day dwarfs that of any other age group.
No, come on: you don't think any other age group would stand for the same treatment, do you? If a new study showed that the most dangerous group of drivers were actually, say, 30-40 year olds, you can be sure they wouldn't be banned from the road either.
It's not about turnout among the elderly. It's about young people being disenfranchised. They're discriminated against at every turn because they're powerless to stop it.
You'd think with all of us former teens, still scarred from society's relentless abuse, would rally around the cause of eliminating teenage oppression. But we don't. You know why? Most of us look back at how unbelievably stupid, reckless and irresponsible we were as teenagers. With age, comes some perspective.
That's one theory.
Here's another: most adults don't care about teenage oppression because it isn't their problem anymore. It's easier to just ignore it as soon as you turn 18, or 21, than to keep fighting for a cause that doesn't benefit you personally. Many of them also feel a perverse sense of justice in subjecting the next generation to the same poor treatment that they themselves had to face.
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:4, Insightful)
How many times do we have to go through the tired "Group A is a higher risk for X, therefore Group A should be systematically banned from it" solution? If dangerous driving is the problem, address it with a solution that targets unsafe drivers, not the group that has a higher proportion of unsafe drivers. How many Slashdotters suddenly fall on the other side of this issue when we're talking about airport screening? Racial profiling and age profiling are equally dirty games to play.
Teens are also one of a few groups that everyone has been a member of at one point. You'd think with all of us former teens, still scarred from society's relentless abuse, would rally around the cause of eliminating teenage oppression. But we don't.
This is also a tired argument. The other side of your point here is that none of us ever have to worry about being teenagers ever again. The level of personal risk is a *much* more salient factor for most people, I suspect, and in this case, it's zero. How many of the extravagantly wealthy are looking back on their humble beginnings and championing the causes of the poor? Some notable examples, yes, but not as many as those of us who know it could be our names on the welfare applications next year.
Well, I suppose this story is too old and the thread too long for my comment to get much visibility, but maybe I've at least enriched one person's perspective?
Re: (Score:2)
Racial profiling and age profiling are equally dirty games to play.
That's actually a really good point. Theoretically they both stand on the same moral ground. But age profiling permeates almost every aspect of our society. We prohibit those under 16 from driving, even though some may be excellent drivers. We prohibit those under 18 from voting, even though many posses the capability to make rational political decisions. Under 21, can't drink. All of those choices are made based simply on age, not the individual circumstances or abilities. But I don't think its possible to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because unlike other high-risk groups, teens get into more accidents largely due to mere inexperience - The cure for which involves, of all things, doing the activity they suck at more, not less.
Grandma's eyesight won't ever come back, but young drivers will learn when to pay more attention to the road than to their phone/radio/whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Because unlike other high-risk groups, teens get into more accidents largely due to mere inexperience - The cure for which involves, of all things, doing the activity they suck at more, not less.
Yes, but can't society stop them from endangering us all, and restrict teen cell phone use until they gain that experience? Let them get good at driving first, then let them add distractions later.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't compare vision impaired and drunken drivers to teenagers, it's not the same thing. Two are a state a person can be in, and teenagers are a group of people.
Being a teenager was a state I was in for quite a few years. Your argument would be valid, if I was just picking people at random and grouping them together. Teenagers are a group of people, all of them sharing the same state. I'm not sure why I can't group together people whose physical or mental differences (however temporary or self-imposed those may be) make them higher risk drivers.
You don't screw over multiple people because many(most?) of them are not great at something. Get back under your bridge.
I'm pretty sure we do it all the time: young people can't vote because we believe they would not make rational and informe
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:5, Funny)
.. because adults never drive stupidly .
There, I made you look less stupid.
Re: Driving Stupid! (Score:3, Funny)
They're Rollin' ... they're Hatin' ... ...
Tryin' to catch me Drivin' Stupid
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope I'm not the one they hit while they're texting on their phone.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem there is that on the road, bad things can happen to people who are *not* doing anything stupid, as a result of someone else's stupidity. If that were not the case, I would agree with you- driving would introduce a much-needed instance of natural selection to the human race. Unfortunately, innocent people are often injured and killed on the road. We use speed bumps and other measures for their sake.
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate speed bumps too, but "bad things happen to stupid people doing stupid things" ignores the corollary that "bad things happen to people who get hit by cars driven by stupid people doing stupid things"
I'll tell you where you can jam it... (Score:2)
Sadly, this probably wouldn't have stopped the drunken teen driver who literally drove into the oncoming lane of stopped traffic head on into my family's car a while back. (which left me with a broken neck and paralysis on the left side of my body...) But hey, I'm sure it would've at least ensured I'd be dead by preventing anyone else nearby from actually being able to call 911.
Yes, cellphone's are annoying... especially in the hands of those irresponsible enough not to obey the laws or observe social etiqu
I call BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Please cite some examples of situations where 911 is not appropriate but yet you must make a phone call while driving? A call so important (but not important enough for 911) that it will actually make you safer if you do it while you are still driving instead of pulling to the side of the road or waiting for a stoplight.
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite some examples of situations where 911 is not appropriate but yet you must make a phone call while driving? A call so important (but not important enough for 911) that it will actually make you safer if you do it while you are still driving instead of pulling to the side of the road or waiting for a stoplight.
Easy: not everywhere has 911 service. Since it's a cell phone, you might normally have 911 available to you, but then leave the area without realizing it. Then, when someone's following you through a rural area with no safe place to pull in, you can't call 411 to get connected to the local Sheriff.
Or what if you're just lost? And, you happen to have gotten lost in Compton? You should pull over and turn off the car to call someone for directions?
Re: (Score:2)
So we're someplace where 911 is unavailable, but 411 is? No.
Okay, I've been in Compton and somehow managed to navigate it's labyrinthine system of roads without calling my mom -- but let's take your generic example of being in a Bad Neighborhood that you inexplicably can't get out of by g
Re:911, but not Mom? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, preventing them from learning by experience is likely to have the opposite effect of the one intended.
You're absolutely right. I just don't want your learning experience to end in a head-on crash with my car.
Cars are dangerous. Driving your car is probably the most dangerous thing you do every day (unless your a Marine or firefighter) for yourself and others. You really think society should just toss kids the keys and let them learn on their own?
Re: (Score:2)
no, i think their parents should teach them how to operate a motor vehicle in a responsible manner. why's that gotta be so hard?
Re: (Score:2)
You really think society should just toss kids the keys and let them learn on their own?
False dichotomy
How about instead teaching your kids responsibility from an early age, so that when they become teenagers they will--gasp--be responsible without having to resort to electronic nannies? (Which won't solve the underlying problem.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally agree with you.
When I started driving there was a new suburb being built near by, all the roads here laid out before the blocks of land where even sold. Me and my mates used to tear it up along the brand new road there was nothing to crazy or dangerous for us to try. Now several years on the skills I learned back then have since helped me avoid a major crash on more than one occasion.
What we did was illegal but it was the best driving lessons any of us could have. That said I don't advocate behavi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
911 service is not available in all areas.
911 is also not the first call I'd necessarily make in all emergencies.
Also note: there's no comment about hacking this to prevent a teenage girl from making a call on her cell phone while an assailant is approaching her. If he simply carries a hacked set of keys with him, she's cut off.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, this JUST happened to a co-worker of mine this week. His car flipped over into a ditch, and since it was below the surface of the roadway, no one knew he was there. He called a friend for help from his cell while seat-belted upside-down.
Re: (Score:2)
Teenagers never cause crashes it's normally some old bitch picking her spoilt little shits up from school.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that many cars will not run unless they receive that signal from said key as well. So stopping the signal means the car will not start. I am not sure if wrapping the key after the car is started matters.
Re:um.. (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to me that it would be tied to a single phone. It would be illegal to blanket jam, if I'm recalling FCC regulations correctly. A jamming signal might impair the communications of a passing vehicle.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Still prevents anyone in the car from using your phone. And it still allows you to use someone else's phone while driving. This is stupid and too easily defeated.
Re: (Score:2)
Still prevents anyone in the car from using your phone. And it still allows you to use someone else's phone while driving. This is stupid and too easily defeated.
Not to mention, you can get a copy of your car key (granted, it may cost $100 if it's got an embedded chip, but still). Keep the key in the sleeve, use the copy to drive the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that just turning off your phones bluetooth (generally a menu option) should foil it.
Re:Sure.... (Score:5, Informative)
The car sends a signal to software on the phone that disables texting and calling any non-approved numbers. 911 is enabled by default and the parents can set further phone numbers which can be called.
Re:So... stuck in car pileup = no cell phone 911? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently nobody bothered reading the article. The device is coupled with the cellphone and is provided by the cellphone company. It doesn't jam the phone it simply tells the phone not to make or receive calls. It does allow 911 calls.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You must be new here...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if someone has died, the best way to go about things is to tell someone about it whilst they're driving at 70mph, so they can lose their concentration and crash, causing another death. Two birds with one stone eh?
What does this have to do with the government anyway? You really are an ignorant fucker.
Re:So... stuck in car pileup = no cell phone 911? (Score:5, Informative)
"Smart phones" already handle this (Score:2)
I'm reasonably sure these guys have thought of at least that. I'm still not sure it's a useful idea, but I doubt that particular objection will hold.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong [businesswire.com].
Re:hey naysayers (Score:5, Insightful)
By the same logic, we should ban driving entirely, because teens kill even without cell phones. As always, a proper cost-benefit analysis needs to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry mate, but you're wrong - depriving people of the freedom to simply do what they want is wrong.
I'm not talking about illegal actions. They're prohibited, as they should be. But stopping people - young or old, or whoever they are - from just hanging out with friends late at night?
but I am happy to curb their rights when they want to kill themselves and take other people with them
Absolute rubbish. Teenagers driving around late at nigh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc AND slippery slope.
There are plenty of reasons this IS and IS NOT a good idea depending on your circumstances. Constructing bad arguments to trash the entire idea as terrible is just plain stupid.