Government trying to block cell phones in cars

[IDemo]

Source: msnbc

Department of Transportation considers adding technology to disable phones

By Eric Bland
Discovery Channel
updated 11/29/2010 1:23:41 PM ET

Not content with laws banning talking or texting while driving, the U.S. Department of Transportation is considering adding technology to automobiles that would disable cell phones. The move is a response to the growing number of deaths and injuries related to distracted driving.

"I think the technology is there," said Raymond LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation. "And I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones."

In addition to his comments on disabled cell phones, LaHood also announced a new video campaign, "Faces of Distracted Driving." The series of online videos tells the stories of several victims of distracted driving. The DoT plans to add a new video every few weeks.

During his talk last week LaHood said that nearly 5,500 people died from distracted driving last year, and that about half a million were injured. That's a low estimate, according to Paul Atchley, a scientist at the University of Kansas who studies distracted driving.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40418794/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/

[Newsjock]

1. Dear god in heaven, what constituency *aren't* we pissing off yet?

Regardless of whether this is a "good idea," this is scarcely the time to be driving (ha!) this into the nation's agenda.

And yes, I saw a moron talking on her cellphone on the way home from work tonight. She was oblivious to everything going on around her, and didn't even care when I tooted my horn. Cellphone drivers suck, but we have laws that can deal with that.

[Imajika]

9. Seriously, this is just stupid...

We don't need the government trying to block, jam or otherwise spend a bunch of time trying to disable mobile phones in cars.

Considering how bad the economy is and all the major issues facing America, surely the Federal Government can find something more useful to do than wasting a bunch of energy on cell phone use in cars.

[loudsue]

56. Absolutely stupid. There are some people that are distracted on the phone.

There are millions of business people who are absolutely safe while talking on the phone in the car....or talking to a passenger in the car. This is the police state born & bred.

[Eddie Haskell]

100. You're flat out wrong.

Look at the statistics.

[loudsue]

116. You're flat out wrong. Statistics my ass.

All people need to do is educate themselves. Most of the people who are having accidents are texting. People have been using cell phones since the early 90's, and have done fine. There are stupid people and bad drivers everywhere. Some people can't talk on the phone and drive. They need to admit it and quit doing it, NOT make a law against those MILLIONS who are talking on the phone and doing fine.

I'm so sick of this fucking trend of making every goddamned thing "against the law", because some people are assholes.

[Skidmore]

105. On our way back from Chicago, this past week, we were nearly

run off the road by a young woman with her cell phone glued to her head who was travelling way over the speedlimit on a 6 lane highway. I'm certain she never had a clue that she nearly caused a serious accident. I have no problem with a measure like this. If someone cannot live without a goddamned phone glued to their head for a few minutes a day or doesn't have the sense that it would take to pour piss out of a boot to pull over to the side to conduct a brief conversation, then I really don't have much patience for a freaking rant about free speech/violatin' my rights on their behalf.

[cleanhippie]

96. No, the laws are not doing anything about it.

Most states have a law regarding distracted driving, and at least from MY perspective, nothing has changed.

[wtmusic]

2. Good. nt

[CreekDog]

13. What about passengers?

If I have to be in a car to drive down to LA as a passenger, I want my smartphone to work.

[housewolf]

60. That was my question, too

especially in regards to long-distance trips

[X_Digger]

88. Authoritarian bullshit. n/t

[loudsue]

117. It IS authoritarian bullshit, and I'm sick of it. n/t

[MissB]

3. And not long after, we'll see the work-around technology released.

A public info campaign would seem to be more effective. Something more than an online video campaign.

[Xithras]

34. Yes. They'll be called "wire cutters".

Any jamming tech will need to have power applied. Cut that power, and the jammer quits working.

I gurantee you there will be websites with detailed instructions on "what wire to cut, and where to cut it" for every make and model with this "jammer".

Heck, I might even set it up myself. The ad revenue could be lucrative.

[Thor_MN]

69. And if the technolgy is detecting that the phone is moving >20mph?

How are you going to cut that wire?

[Xithras]

80. We'll never see wide adoption of handset-based limiters.

People won't tolerate their handsets becoming nonfunctional on the bus, subway, or train, and the handset makers will wage all-out war to keep that from happening. Mobile phones are rapidly becoming full fledged mobile entertainment and communication devices used for everything from watching streaming movies to twittering and Facebooking your friends, and the mobile makers are aggressively marketing them for those uses. They aren't going to sit idly by while the government tries to dictate that the devices be shutdown while in motion. Others here have cited the "passengers in the car" argument, but that's actually the least of the impositions if phones simply shut down when moving at higher speeds.

Besides, many of us already use rooted or jailbroken phones (I do) for various reasons. It's a given that any attempt to enforce this in the handset will be bypassed within hours by the jailbreak-set.

[Skittles]

4. cut 'em off at the movies too

please

[pacalo]

7. And in check-out lines. How egregiously rude!

:P

[Skittles]

11. ooh

people who talk on their cell phone while dealing with a clerk - not even acknowledging said person - WTF???? RUDE, RUDE, RUDE :thumbsdown:

[CreekDog]

15. you aren't serious about wanting a government regulation to prohibit their use at movies

although i completely agree that they are annoying at the movies and that it's fair to kick someone out for using them.

[Skittles]

30. naw, it's just a joke

from a frustrated movie buff :)

[CreekDog]

42. I love movies too and one of the main reasons I prefer going out to movies...

over staying in is that the dark room and the big screen forces me to put my phone away and focus solely on the movie.

:hi:

[Skittles]

48. EXACTLY

when I'm at home I'm too tempted to wander away for, well, many reasons - when I'm at the movies I PAY ATTENTION which is why cell phone interruptions by others (just that glowing screen drives me nuts) makes me angry! :hi:

[pacalo]

33. Ignorant people who push the envelope are generally the cause for new (boundaries) laws.

In a perfect world where people use common sense & common courtesy in everything they do in public, there wouldn't be a need for laws that create limitations.

[Skittles]

39. correct

it's damned hard when you understand common sense and courtesy and live in a world filled with people who do not :(

[pacalo]

55. There are just too many of these walking around...

[Skittles]

72. FAIL

W.T.F.

[blondeatlast]

92. Oy. nt

[lunamagica]

120. But it doesn't happen

I rarely go to the movies, but when I do, there's always ALWAYS at least one moron checking their phone while the theater is in total darkness. It totally takes me out of the movie and ruins the whole experience for me. I really don't see anything wrong with movie theaters disabling cell phone access. For over a hundred yrs people went out if they had to make a phone call, why can't they do it now?

There's no educating or reasoning with those who use cells at the movies. They already know they shouldn't use them; they just don't care.

[blondeatlast]

90. Now that I can get behind--and check out lines and restaurants, esp. when the waiter/

waitress is there to take one's order.

:mad:

[AnArmyVeteran]

119. Having an audience full of bright smartphone screens destroys a movie.

But instead of the government getting involved I like to see theater owners eject anyone who turns on a phone during a movie. I pay to go to a movie and I shouldn't be subjected to assholes who stay on their phones throughout the movie. I can't believe the number of clueless, thoughtless people in society who couldn't care less if they are disturbing everyone else.

Instead of the government involvement maybe there should be laser weapons installed at theaters that automatically fry any phones that are turned on.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Stupid.

Why not ban CD players and radios? I'm sure they have caused more accidents over the years.

Accidents I've been in the last 20 years of cell phone ownership = 0

Accidents, car fires and hit-and-runs I've called in with a cell = +5

[Orrex]

6. Can they disable cheeseburgers and makeup, too?

Let's get serious and eliminate all distractions!

[Kolesar]

21. silly

[U4ikLefty]

35. How is it silly?

[AndyTiedye]

8. If My Accelerator Won't Stop Accelerating, How Do I Call for Technical Support?

[smiley]

27. +1

;)

[IDemo]

10. The government may have a problem: the government

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=cellular

Blocking & Jamming

The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

[virgogal]

12. I got my first cell phone in 1994. Reason-----security. I was

followed and harassed once and as soon as cell phones became available for a reasonable price I got one.

It would be useless for automobile security if disabled.

[Kolesar]

22. stop the car and call eom

[virgogal]

36. I wouldn't pull over late at night on a highway to make a 911 call.

If I felt I was being harassed,as I mentioned in my earlier post,I certainly would not stop.

[LiberalFighter]

14. What happens when there is an emergency? Will 911 reactivate the phone?

Add technology to autos? So how long will it take before all operational vehicles will have the technology?

Is LaHood thinking this through?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. What happens when my passenger wants to make a call?

[Kolesar]

23. Is that more important than pedestrians' safety? eom

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. When it has absolutely ZERO to do with the driver? Yes.

[Kolesar]

26. It doesn't

the phone has to either be disabled when the car is moving or not disabled. "Not disabled" puts pedestrians at risk.

[MiniMe]

29. Not if it isn't the driver that is using the cell phone

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. No. Drivers breaking EXISTING cell phone laws put pedestrians at risk.

Enforce the laws that already exist. It's not hard to see a driver with a phone pressed to their ear. Increase the fines if needed. But there should be no reason a responsible driver shouldn't be able to have their passenger make a call. None whatsoever.

Anyway. This all mental masturbation. The automakers are all incorporating hands-free technology in their new cars so they will never stand still for this.

[uppityperson]

32. If I'm riding in the back seat as a passenger, how does using my cell phone put peds @ risk?

seriously, how? Because the driver might listen in? Then it is time to prohibit conversations in cars and music/radios in cars. Maybe duct tape everyone's mouth shut for a temporary fix? Adults might remember but kids, betcha they will continue to talk and distract the driver.

So, how WILL my using a cell phone in the back seat as a passenger put peds @ risk?

[Timbuk3]

46. If you're riding with me

...and you'd rather talk to someone else on the phone than talk to me, you might not be putting anyone's life at risk, but I'm going to be REAL SURE you're an asshole.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

54. You're kidding right.

Here's a scene that doesn't involve you but me... My husband and I are driving along, wide open empty road out west with no houses, no other cars, no people on bikes and my phone rings.... it's one of my sons, one is in South Korea and the other in England, but I don't want my husband to think I'm an asshole, so I don't answer it.

There are other scenarios besides yours.

[Timbuk3]

59. No, I'm not kidding

Sure, the case you cite *could* be an exception. I wouldn't think you were an asshole for answering the phone if it's a relative who lives far away AND RARELY CALLS YOU.

But here's something that's happened to me. My wife and I are on a road trip and her phone rings. It's her daughter, who lives far away but calls nearly ever day. Not only am I ignored for 15 to 30 minutes, but she keeps reaching over to turn down the radio so she can hear.

The reasonable thing to do is say "I'm driving with my husband, right now. Can I call you back when we get there/home?" And leave the radio alone while you're at it.

For some reason there are people who think that when a phone rings it MUST be answered. I'm not one of them.

For me, face-to-face trumps a phone call.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

65. I like to talk about real life situations that could happen to me

tomorrow.

Our sons calls have to be taken. Like I said our youngest is at university in England and when he calls I take it because he's calling for a good reason. We will in the middle of nowhere and it might be a few hours for us to get where we're going and there's an 8 hour time difference..

Our oldest son is close to the DMZ in South Korea and I'd never dream of telling him to wait till I get home. I don't like talking on the phone at all and I will sit on my phone to shut it up (I've never took the time to find out how to shut off the ringer) unless it's the boys checking in from aboard.

Everyone has a different story. :)

[Timbuk3]

71. Please see my alternate reply

I don't think we'd have a hard time reaching an understanding if we drove together often.

Perspective and balance are always OK with me.

[Timbuk3]

73. I seem to be good at second thoughts, tonight

I don't know enough about your son calling from England to "take a position". Is there some reason he can't talk in the middle of the night? Do his needs ALWAYS over-ride your relationship with "me" (your husband)? Or could you call him back tomorrow, or the next day? If it's urgent and he leaves you a voice mail why, wouldn't he appreciate a call back when you get where you're going?

The son on the DMZ is probably a different story. I don't know, because I've never been in that situation, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Like I said in my other post, I'd probably pull in somewhere and want to talk to him myself.

I don't know how old you are. I'm old enough to remember when there were no cell phones and (believe it or not) no answering machines. I remember what happened when I wasn't home to answer the phone.

Most of the time, they didn't bother to call back because it wasn't important.

On the rare occasion when it was important (and I can include a death in the family in this) they DID call back. The kept calling until they reached me.

I'll never forget eating at my friend Larry's house. The phone rang. Larry picked it up and said "Call back later, eating", and hung up.

I have no doubt that if the phone had rung again immediately Larry would have spoken to whoever was calling. But, it didn't, so it wasn't that important.

I'm sure Larry spoke to them later, and they remained friends.

I honestly feel some pity for people who let the phone rule their lives. Are they that afraid of "losing someone"?

I'm not.

Leave me a message. I WILL call you back. When it's convenient for me.

And if this pisses "you" off, I can live with it.

Because it's might presumptuous of someone to assume that just because I answered the phone I have nothing better to do than talk on the phone for the next 1/2 hour.

OK, that's it. I think I've expressed my opinion as best I can.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

76. I'm 57 next month and we didn't even own a phone

when I was a young 'un.

I know people, here in the West, that remember using telephone lines made from barbed wire fences...for real.

My son would be calling about something important that we are in the middle of sorting out at his uni and it's timely. I'd put it the call on speaker phone and let his dad deal with it like he does.
Telling him to wait would waste yet another day of him getting it all settled.

Everyone has different situations and needs for cell phones in their cars. I really understand about people thinking they 'have you' once you answer the phone.

Someone I knew told me about the time he was working in the lab on a procedure that was very important and had taken a long time to set up. The phone rang and the the other person answered it and the whole experiment was ruined..can't remember all the details, but my friend was furious and 'anti-answering' phone after that, lol.

Thank you for expressing your opinion...I get it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

85. So,,,cellphones must be silenced at movie theaters, and in your presence.

Wow. Do you sell popcorn for when people hang around you?

[Timbuk3]

68. I don't want to belabor the point

I'm just not completely satisfied with my last reply, although I stand by it.

Here's the thing. If your son is a service man serving overseas, able to call only rarely, I'd see your point and GLADLY let you speak to him WHEREVER we happened to be. I might even pull over and speak to him, myself.

But this is such a rare situation. Most of the time, it's "Sally" calling with a grocery list, or "Connie" wanting to vent about her latest boyfriend.

So both you and "Connie" are imposing on me if you think I should just turn off the radio (so you can hear) and drive you to your destination while you while away the hours on the phone.

Maybe it's because I've made so many road trips. I enjoy having company on the ride. And "Connie" just took that company away from me, AND demanded that I ride in silence "so you can hear". I'm now reduced to your chauffeur, or better yet, your bus driver. An "employee", no longer worthy of consideration. "Shut up and drive."

And that's in a "best case" situation. What about a car-pool? I'm driving with a co-worker, who wants me to stay quiet while they talk to their boyfriend about what they're going to do this weekend? You mean it can't wait until you get home? You have that little respect for me?

So, yeah. If it's "corporal son" in Iraq, I'm going to pull over and talk to him TOO! But if it's meaningless bullshit from someone you speak to every day (and night)? Nah. Talk to me and let's listen to some good music. The call can wait.

Seriously, I'm not looking for a fight, but can you see this? People let phones rule their lives. I hate to watch it.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

77. Yes I understand.

I think people are being very rude when they do what you said. I'd be tempted to run their batteries down if I could, lol. :)

[Timbuk3]

78. I chose to reply to this

...although your other response was worthy.

I agree. Thanks for a sane discussion.

Yeah, not ever phone call is equal. And I DEFINITELY understand wanting to speak to your sons.

But speaking only for myself, sometimes it's best to just turn my phone off.

Thanks again!

I think you're someone I can get along with.

[uppityperson]

106. I am glad I read the rest of this subthread before replying.

My first reaction was :No worries, I don't think I'd ever ride with someone with that attitude.

After reading the subthread and your clarifications, I think I am understanding more of what you mean.

Yes, I think it rude at times to let phone calls take precedence over people present, whether that be in business or personal. I appreciate businesses that answer their phone, put someone on hold and continue helping the person they were dealing with before going back to the phone. Or else take a number and call them back. People used to give me odd and rude looks in the grocery store when I answered them when those ear thingies first came out.

I take my phone calls outside or to a place away from people when I can, but if I am riding in a car with someone and a work call comes in (I work by appointment, and not often in this economy I am sad to say) I WILL take the call to schedule a meeting. However I do not answer all my calls either, which bugs some friends but hey, what is voicemail for?

As you wrote below, not all phone calls are the same. Thanks for clarifying.

I notice the one whose post I answered upthread (how does passengers using phone put peds @ risk hasn't answered.

[Demeter]

81. Many a Time I Have Wished to Duct Tape My Kid's Mouth in the Car....

but somehow, I haven't had an accident anyway...ever, not even with a cell phone...

This is what Darwin is all about...purging the stupid genes. and that includes pedestrians arrogant enough to think they don't have to pay attention to the traffic.

[jberryhill]

40. Sure, well, women alone at night and lost, should have to stop and get out

Yeah, there's a good idea.

[truthisfreedom]

18. Hopefully. But there are a million reasons why they shouldn't do this. There should be

a national law for hands-free kits.

[Richard D]

16. Daddy daddy please answer the phone . . .

. . . there's something wrong with mommy and I don't know what to do . . .

[Timbuk3]

47. Teach your kids to call 911

Where TRAINED people can help your kids deal with the emergency.

[cleanhippie]

99. +10000

[cleanhippie]

98. puh-LEASE! The "what about the children" meme is old and busted.

and thats why we have 911. If kids can call mommy or daddy, they can call 911.

[Proletariatprincess]

19. perhaps this isn't about safety at all....

since most cell phones now have cameras, capturing images of rogue cops and traffic officers behaving badly has become an embarrassment to the Police State.
....just sayin'........

[Kolesar]

24. And UFOs

we almost got proof of UFOs

[Kolesar]

20. As a cyclist, I am terrified of these people drifting out of their lanes

and not looking out for anybody because they have only one hand on the wheel and their brains are out in space.

I see people not using turn signals. I see people slowing down and speeding up.

[bluetrain]

84. As a vehicle driver who drives on roads made for vehicles I wish you cyclists would stick to roads

with bike lanes instead of making us all less safe by insisting on being somewhere you shouldn't be and refusing to follow traffic laws and often not even wearing helmets.

[Fumesucker]

87. A bicycle is a vehicle..

It just happens to be a non-motorized vehicle, pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles are prohibited on interstate highways, ever seen a bicycle on the interstate?

There isn't a single road with a bike lane in my entire county, not one.

Does that mean that no one should ride a bicycle in my county?

[uppityperson]

107. Bikes are vehicles & legally allowed on many roadways but I agree they need to follow traffic laws

Bicycles are NOT allowed on roadways where non-motorized vehicles are prohibited, but otherwise are allowed on roadways (With some exceptions of course). There are not bike lanes a lot of places and where would you have them ride? Or not ride?

I agree with you that they need to follow traffic laws like all other vehicles.

[Kolesar]

109. Bicycles had rights to the roads before there were automobile

Cyclists associations were the ones who lobbied to get the roads paved.

You are going to get educated on this thread.

[GoCubsGo]

95. Hell, as a motor vehicle driver, I'm terrified of that.

I see it every day. It's not just cyclists that have to worry. The rest of us on the road have to put up with them, too.

The drivers around here are bad enough without the cell phones, which is why I no longer bicycle.

[unkachuck]

28. why stop with cell phones?

....the technology exists to keep you and your car from exceeding the speed limit....from passing in a no-passing zone....from going the wrong way down a one-way street....to ticket you when you run a stop sign or tailgate another vehicle....

....seriously, I wouldn't mind any of these measures coming into fruition....but then again, I don't drive computerized techno-trap vehicles....I guess you'll have to make me and my vehicles illegal....

[Xithras]

38. I saw a demo of an anti-speeding system about two years ago.

Basically, your local road authority places RFID chips (dirt cheap at less than a buck a chip) on the speed limit signs, and every few miles along the roadway. Your car picks up on the RFID signals to determine the appropriate current speed limit. If your car exceeds that speed, a warning light activates and a buzzer goes on under the dash until you slow down.

The guy in the piece remarked that they "only needed the regulatory mandate to install this in all cars, and speeding could be ended forever."

Yes Virginia, there really is a Grinch. And he read Orwell.

[unkachuck]

50. sure....

....it wouldn't need to be a warning device, your computer could be programed not to let your vehicle exceed whatever the chip was telling it....the chip and speed signal could be coming from a sign, buried in the pavement, coming from a police vehicle, etc....

....and without a refresh-signal, maximum speed for your vehicle would be 45 mph....hang on to your old titles....

[Xithras]

57. The tech I was talking about could be fitted into older vehicles.

The problem with computerized throttle limiters is that they require a car with a full ECM. Even today, many brand new cars don't have those.

The "Speed Buzzer" could be fitted onto existing cars, no matter how old or primitive they might be. You'd need nothing more than a single 12 volt power lead. The whole thing was only about the size of a cigarette pack too, so it could be placed almost anywhere in the car.

I've been searching the Net but can't find a reference to it, so maybe they folded up shop. As I recall, rather than enforcing the limit electronically, their idea was to annoy the driver into slowing down. The buzzer was loud enough so that it drowned out normal radio noise or conversations. You had to shout to be heard over it.

[boppers]

51. My GPS unit already shows this information (limit for the location).

My car also already has a built-in limiter to prevent excessive speed.

Granted, the limit is 146 mph, but the technology is already in there.

[cleanhippie]

101. Considering that driving is a privelege and not a right...

what is the downside to this RFID chip anti-speeding system you viewd?

[Ilsa]

37. But I'm certain they'll find a way to let those with chaffeurs continue to use their phones. nt

[Timbuk3]

41. It's OK with me

I've lost track of how many times I've been stuck behind some moron in the fast lane, going 15 or 20 miles below the speed limit, with a half mile of open road ahead and 4,392 cars stacked up behind him. Because he's focused on getting the grocery list from his girlfriend instead of paying attention to what he's doing with the potential death machine he's driving.

Seriously, I have ZERO sympathy for assholes who think it's OK to talk on the phone, much less text, while they're driving.

Pull over if you need to talk.

[GoCubsGo]

86. Same here.

I only drive a few miles a day, lately. Yet, I have multiple near-collisions on a daily basis with idiots who are trying to drive one-handed so that they can keep their goddamn phone plastered to their ears. Too busy with the phone to pay attention to where they are driving AND driving one-handed. Wonderful combination there. And, we're lucky when they're only dong 15 or 20 mph.

[backscatter712]

43. Of course, this makes no sense if it's the passenger, not driver, that's using the phone...

More nanny-state bullshit.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

44. LaHood

"Raymond H. "Ray" LaHood (born December 6, 1945) is the current United States Secretary of Transportation and a former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives.
During his service in Congress, he became well-known among C-SPAN viewers, as the presiding officer of more debates than any other member. Most notably, he presided over the impeachment vote against President Bill Clinton".

[KT2000]

45. I call AAA on the cell phone

when my car breaks down. That is the only reason I have a phone. To visit the big city, it is a drive of about 45 miles - most of it without businesses, phones or anything else.
How are people supposed to call for help in an emergency or accident???

People should not talk on the phone while driving but we need phones for emergencies. They have removed most of the phone booths!!!

[AnneD]

49. I use a navigation app...

for my cell phone. That way I don't have to shell out for a navigator. I have called to report 911 emergencies from my moving car. I don't like to talk while I drive and will not text but you know, eating, hunting for a CD, or changing the radio car cause the same effect. Are we going to ban that. And how would you know it was you and not the passenger?

Hope this is a stupid ass trial balloon. Hey and while you are at it, why not disable the computer system on a car that is driving too fast.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

52. This wouldn't go over well where I live

in the middle of nowhere. You can drive 50 miles easy and not pass a house let alone a pedestrian. The cell phone has been a life saver for us. And we have hands free devices now.

Yes, the US is becoming a nanny state all right. lol. I even have good old nanny peering down the front of my knickers to see what's down there.

Let the cops give up their dashboard mounted lap tops first.

[KoKo]

62. Can you not stop your car and call? Think of stopping as using a Pay Phone like the Old Days?

It's not a big deal to do that...I wouldn't think. I grew up Rural...I remember being lost and worrying where I'd ever find a town that might have a "pay phone" in years ago. They aren't taking away your pay phone...just asking you to not use it while driving. That doesn't seem a big deal to just pull over somewhere and call. Especially if you are out in the middle of nowhere and not in a Big City with traffic where it might be hard to find a place to stop. :shrug:

[Boudica the Lyoness]

74. There's 50 miles between us and the next town.

There's no houses..no trees, no towns, no blokes on bikes, not one traffic light. Certainly no pay phone. There's bugger all. Only wide open space and a few tumble-weeds.

Here's the scenario; Husband is in pick-up driving in middle of nowhere. Meanwhile back at the ranch, a cow is down, calving. Calf is stuck with it's head poking out. I need help pulling it and I know by the time husband returns home the calf will be dead and maybe the cow. I grab my cell phone out of my pocket and call husband. He answers (hands free) turns around and comes home. We pull calf and all is well.

In a nanny state I can't call him because his phone has been disabled. He doesn't know there's trouble back at the ranch and so he keeps driving west. I watch the calf die and maybe the cow as well. It's an ugly sight.

By the way, the vet is 50 miles away and his office contacts him by cell phone in his mobile clinic..but no more because 'The Man' has disabled his phone. Vets are not called generally to pull calves. Cattlemen would go broke if that was the case.

Okay KoKo, if you tell me how I can reach my husband or even save the cow/calf pair in a nanny state, I'll name our first heifer calf KoKO in the Spring in your honor, if that's okay.

This is not going to go over well in the red states, I can tell you that now.

[donco6]

94. What's a "pay phone"?

Haven't seen one for quite a while.

[cleanhippie]

104. Not a chance.

You are asking us to do something quite reasonable, and that, sir, is unacceptable.

[uppityperson]

110. If someone is following me, harassing me, I want to be able to call for help without stopping. getti

getting out of my car.

"If you are out in the middle of nowhere", WHO are you endangering by talking on the phone? You seems to be saying that it is difficult to find a place to pull over in the city so it's ok to talk, but out in the middle of nowhere where there is no traffic you should?
:shrug:

[KoKo]

121. What I hear you say is that if you are being followed by a Threat..you need to have C-Phone

to call because your SAFETY is involved.

What I'm asking is ...does a Cell Phone keep you safer if you are "in the middled of NoWHERE" any more than if you didn't have a Cell Phone at all?

Maybe having a (heavy metal object or gun in your Glove Compartment or Under your Seat) a weapon to defend yourself would be better if you are driving alone through most of the Mid-Country of the USA going from East Coast to West Coast...where there's "Little" in BETWEEN?

How would having a Cell Phone protect you from what everyone else had to face on those roads alone for DECADES before You?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

122. Local woman was hunted down in rural Idaho several yrs back, on the road

she was chased, forced off the road, her throat slit and then set on fire. I don't recall how she was found, thinking the fire drew someone there. She was hospitalized for a long time, survived. Would have been nice to be able to call for help. Perhaps getting through to local sheriff might have gotten her found quicker.

Just because a safety device wasn't available "for DECADES before" me doesn't mean they should be dismissed now. And no, I'd rather have a cell phone than a gun thank you very much.

You didn't answer my questions:
If you are out in the middle of nowhere", WHO are you endangering by talking on the phone? You seems to be saying that it is difficult to find a place to pull over in the city so it's ok to talk, but out in the middle of nowhere where there is no traffic you should?

[tomm2thumbs]

53. why don't they just give a set of free bluetooth headsets that work only with the car?

they are cool looking, they stay in the car, they charge automatically and attach magnetically to the dash... who wouldn't just use the easier hands-free device than fumble for the actual phone?

it has to be cheaper than trying to enact some kind of laws across the US

[KoKo]

64. Maybe making those Mandatory would be a solution to folks giving up their cell phone use.?

Make everyone use the "hands free.' Or, just stop your car and make your call?

[bluedigger]

58. I wasn't planning on buying a new car anyways.

Not that this has a chance in hell of happening.

[KoKo]

61. I'm fine with that. As long as they can be used for an Emergency for 911 or Triple A Assistance..

why do we need them? If you need to call someone...get off the road and do it.

We all dealt with things before Cell Phones in Cars and we can learn to do it again. Is it losing convenience? YES...but it's distracting and could cause accidents because not all cell phone users are mature enough or have money enough to use or have a "hands free set."

Maybe making "hands free" would work...but who is going to check to see that everyone is using "hands free?"

[BuelahWitch]

82. +1

No cells in cars for almost 100 years and we did just fine.

[uppityperson]

112. radios and cd players also. How many times have people swerved or caused

an accident messing with their music device. I know I've swerved while fiddling with my music device. No such devices in cars for a long long time and we did just fine.

Didn't used to be airbags either and I never got hurt in an accident. I know, being silly here. Just because we didn't have them in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't now.

[struggle4progress]

63. Faces of Distracted Driving

... When you get in your car, buckle up and put your cell phone in the glove compartment ...
http://www.distraction.gov/faces/

If anyone has a complete transcript of Raymond LaHood's comments (partially quoted by Eric Bland), feel free to post it. The direct quote ""I think the technology is there. And I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones" certainly doesn't justify the headline

[Kolesar]

83. •In 2008, almost 20 percent of all crashes in the year involved some type of distraction. - NHTSA

(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - NHTSA).

http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/index.html

[alp227]

66. How about technology to disable right-wing talk radio?

WTF? How will this phone jamming thing really solve the problem of distracted driving? How ridiculous. I think that even if all cars came with ignition interlock devices (car is disabled if it detects alcohol in driver's breath) that'd make more sense.

[Historic NY]

67. How did we ever survive & drive before cell phones?

[GoCubsGo]

89. A lot better, actually.

A whole bunch of people would still be alive today (or not permanently maimed) if it weren't for being slammed into by some idiot on a cell phone. Or, because they slammed into someone else.

I don't own a cell phone. I get along just fine without one. If I were driving greater distances or more frequently, I might get one for emergency purposes. I consider it sad and a shame that so many people let these devices rule their lives the way they do.

[Historic NY]

123. Exactly, I have an onboard hands free system I rarely use.

[Downwinder]

70. This will die when they find that it disrupts 911 tracking.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

75. I don't use my cellphone while driving...

But if my son is riding with me, I sometimes ask him to make a call for any variety of things, including letting police know if someone seems to be in trouble.

This sounds like a dumb idea to me.

[kath]

79. you couldn't pull over and stop to do that?

[exman]

91. Sure, and why don't we ban alcohol to prevent drunk driving too.

Seriously though, distracted drivers have nearly run me down so many times I have lost count. Perhaps the penalties should be on a par with drunken driving-- considering the end result is the same....

[DainBramaged]

93. Fascism will come wrapped in a flag praising jesus and blocking your cell phone

so no one will hear you scream.

[Eddie Haskell]

97. Driving is a privilege!

I have a RIGHT to expect your undivided attention when you're behind the wheel.

I'm tired of sitting behind the users (addicted to yapping) at green lights. The first thing these people do when they get in their car is make a call. My best friend was nearly killed by a kid who was driving while looking for his phone. He rear-ended a stopped car (turn lane) and never even hit his brakes.

This is no different than drinking and driving!

[dembotoz]

102. this should really drive up the market of used cars--pre shut down install

then we can be just like cuba--all of us driving old tanks

you want to kill off detroit????

being available on cell is sort of a condition for my employment.

[City Lights]

103. Maybe they should ban music in cars, too.

Music is distracting. No more radios or CD players! Don't allow the windows to be rolled down either, at least when the car is in Drive. That can be distracting for a driver. Ditto for heater/defroster/windshield wipers, etc. Any of the gadgets in the car must be disabled if the car is in Drive. Too distracting.

Welcome to the nanny state. Ugh.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

113. And other people or esp kids. Those can be very distracting.

food and drink also. And all those gadgets. :sarcasm:

[Union Scribe]

111. I wonder if they made all cars manual transmissions

if people wouldn't be able to text/surf while driving so much. I know I use both hands and feet as I drive, so I couldn't do that shit even if I wanted to.

[Mimosa]

114. My postal delivery man was hit yesterday by a texting driver.

I heard the accident (big boom crash) ran out to see what it was about. A woman had been texting or on her cell phone as she speeded in a 25 mph zone (sounded like she was driving 40mph) and hit our postal carrier's truck. I'm glad neither was hurt. But it certainly was the texting driver's fault. I don't think my state (GA) has any laws against drivers using cell phones or texting while driving.

But I don't support disabling cell phones in autos. Passengers should be able to use them, or drivers when there's an emergency.

[NuclearDem]

115. This is stupid

The technology's already out there to circumvent this problem--hands free sets.

Or you could get more complicated and simply merge other existing auto technologies--take MB's distracted driver technology and combine it with Ford and GM's hands free calling systems. If something activates the DD tech, the phone call is dropped and phone usage is disabled. Preferably with a tone or some sort of alert to the effect "PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD, IDIOT"

And if you're really upset about other people talking in the car when you're driving, go online and buy a cheap cell phone jammer for about $150, install it, and voila, no more problems. But then don't get all shocked when your accelerator sticks and you can't call 911.

[flvegan]

118. The govt should force everyone to buy an $80k Mercedes with collision avoidance.

Text and yap all you want.

And if it's about driver distraction, ban radios (or any sound device), sat-nav systems, drive-thru food, hairbrushes, books and newspapers. Oh, and rip out those pesky rearview mirrors, too.

:eyes:

[JCMach1]

124. Nanny state FAIL

Why not just make 1 person cars since, obviously, someone talking to you is a distraction... ditto for radios, pets, etc.