Would You Pay To Make Sure People Couldn't Call You While Driving?
from the i-sense-a-problem dept
We've seen all sorts of weird or questionable applications, but here's one that we can't quite figure out who would buy. It's an application for your mobile phone that determines if you're moving, and routes the call directly to voicemail. At the very least, it tells the caller that you're driving right now and can't come to the phone, but is that really that important? And how does the app know whether the mobile phone holder is driving... or just a passenger in the car? Or on a bus? And, more importantly, why can't people just not pick up the phone while they're driving? Are people really so addicted to picking up their phone when it rings that they would need to pay for an application that stops them from doing so? If there really are such people, we've got a better solution: turn off your phone when you drive. It's cheaper.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: driving while yakking, software
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Conditioned response
In a word, yes. Maybe "conditioned" would be a better word than "addicted", but I think that especially for people who grew up before cell phones, a ringing phone is irresistable.
Think of these examples...
You're at lunch with a couple of friends. One gets a call on his mobile. He answers it and starts talking, leaving you and your other friend to stare at each other until the conversation is over. Phone guy chose to go out to lunch and talk to you, but suddenly he's talking to someone else.
You're in line at a store and the cashier answers the phone instead of helping the people in line. There are people who are actually in the store, ready to hand over money, but the cashier it talking to someone who may or may not get to that same point.
In both cases, logic would dicatate that the person not answer the phone. Cell phones have voice mail. Serve customers that are actually ready to give you money first. But people are so conditioned to answer the phone that logic is overridden. I'm sure someone has done a paper on this already, but there's a disconnect between our conditioning around communication (which was developed before the explosion in communication media) and the number of communication media that the average person has access to today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conditioned response
Fortunately, I was raised without that impulse. Growing up, if my family was playing a board game together, my dad would tell everyone to ignore the phone if it rang. Many years later, I married a cellphone generation girl. She was *OFFENDED* to the utmost degree one day when she saw me look at my cellphone (we have no landlines) to see who was calling, silence it, and put it away. I had to explain to her that my life is not controlled by others' timetables. She isn't so offended anymore when I do that. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conditioned response
Ha! Good on you. I think that 20 years ago or more, it made sense that it was considered rude to ignore a phone call. I mean, someone went through the trouble of actually going to where the phone was kept in their house and remembering or looking up your phone number. But now with it being so easy to make a call, this response is outdated. The formula has changed, so now it's actually more rude to answer the phone in many situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not for me
Would also be a nice "feature" for insurance reduction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if you are stopped at a light??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've told friends and colleagues that I don't answer my cell if otherwise occupied and they look at me like I'm crazy. "What if it's really important?" to which I respond "What if I didn't have a cell/the battery died/I left it at home/etc., how would you reach me?"
I like the idea as a parental control. It beats wrapping my car in a Faraday cage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW, people only use the word addiction when they believe an activity is unhealthy. Personally, I don't think that just because someone spends a lot of time "connected" that it's an addiction. Yes, anything can be taken to extremes but being connected is not, in and of itself, harmful or unhealthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parents
Second buyer would be government/public/business institutions that don't want their people talking while driving. Sure there are some problems, as you'd identified, but if there could be any reduction in liability for any group that chooses to use these - you can bet someone will jump on it. Insurance companies, for example, would love to create a tier that initially gives better rates to someone with this installed on their mobile phone. (eventually, like everything else, it becomes commonplace and the "discount" eventually goes to zero)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People will buy anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People will buy anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn it off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd pay nothing for this - I just let it ring and call the person back when I am able to.
But some people might buy it - and to that, I guess for that market, it's a good product. I can't really say it's worthless; since a product's worth is what the customer is willing to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a cellphone...
Just how hard is that, anyway??? You would think everyone is a slave to their electronics.
---
www.chl-tx.com :: Nothing deters violent crime as effectively as the possibility that your intended victim might shoot you. Nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a cellphone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares if people want to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But would I pay to not be interrupted while driving? No. I usually don't answer the phone. But my car also has bluetooth capability built in, so I see the phone number on my instrument cluster and can hit answer/ignore from a steering wheel button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -roughly attributed to Ben Franbklin
^^ = TRUE. (no one tell Bush and Paulson, they'd have to cancel their current campaign of theft and extortion.
All that said, we should aggressively promote this new service, wait six months, then cancel the licenses and impound the vehicles of those who remain signed up. In conclusion to this long and rambling post, I leave you with this quote:
"Here are your messages: 'You have thirty minutes to move your car.' 'You have ten minutes to move your car.' 'Your car has been impounded.' 'Your car has been crushed into a cube.' 'You have thirty minutes to move your cube." -Homer S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why didn't I think of that? [slap]
So, now I am thinking of starting a company that will send someone over and slap you on the forehead every time you think of something dead obvious. I am sure people will pay for this, given all the trouble it is to slap one's self in the forehead.
In fact... I can probably get this idea patented!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I keep my phone off most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
teenage feature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hands Free Device
Like many, I wonder why I would pay to have my calls rerouted while I am driving? The hands free device cost a few coins and I plan to use it. As a business, people are always looking for money from me. Paying to this rerouting does not make good business cents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Question
Banks and credit card companies have been sending out solicitations for identity theft protection. Seems to me that preventing fraudulent use of credit cards and checks to a large degree is their responsibility. So why should we pay for a service that is their responsibility? (Yes the customer has an obligation to protect their card or check from fraudulent use too.)
Since companies claim that they selling us products (such as mobile phones) for our benefit; for our benefit they should be providing safety features at no cost to us. After all, our legal system (in part) is based on suing those who sold us unsafe products. Turning the mobile phone off does not make it safe! (humor, for those so challenged.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
argh!
It's called "turn off your phone so calls go to voice mail."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passenger
Maybe the real solution here is to mandate manual transmissions. You need both hands and both legs to drive in traffic and it is hard to use a cell phone that way. Even harder to text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everyone..
not everybody talks, walks and does the same thing as you. As mentioned by some of the posts above, some people may have a use for this app, even if you don't.
Personally I would rather ban phone use while driving all together...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why pay somone else?
Such a service is a great idea, for those too timid to decide to actually not answer the phone on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Ringing can be distracting and/or startling, hardly what some more conscientious drivers want.
2) Some callers (bosses, etc.) regard an unanswered phone as a "problem." Going directly to voicemail "solves" that problem.
The question is, why didn't you think of these obvious reasons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Work With The Company That Does This
Hmmm. Totally disagree with you on this one, and I like the fact that a lot of the other commenters did too! Of course, I have a financial bias on this since I'm on the Board of Advisers for Aegis Mobility, the Vancouver firm that provides this technology.
The people who guessed that it's targeted at parents are spot on. But add employers with field forces to that list. These two groups pay the insurance premiums, and the full costs of any "distracted driver" accidents. Insurance firms are very much on board with this service, and are likely to offer discounted premiums to families/companies who can prove they subscribe.
There were many comments about how this would be impractical. Relax, Aegis isn't dumb! The default is to re-route calls politely with a recorded agent (IVR) when the person is driving. This prevents the distracting ring, interruption, conversation, fumbling for a headset, etc. As people above have indicated, often compulsion drives the 'ring->answer' response, not good judgement. Aegis allows the bill payer to supply their judgement to the 'answer' decision.
So what if a suspicious car is following you, as was suggested above? Or what if you are actually a passenger as Mike wondered? Well, of course there is an 'over-ride' feature that will allow users to place AND receive calls. The catch is that using the over-ride will trigger an SMS or other message to the bill payer. Absolute power to place or take a call always remains with the phone holder, but they are accountable. I think that solves the issues raised above?
Don't pin this on the British just because it's a BBC article. The USA is a hot market for Aegis. Also, it is not necessarily offered for a fee. The carrier can determine whether to offer it for free, fee, or bundle. Also, insurance discounts may make it a net gain financially.
I understand Mike's initial reaction. When I first met the Aegis founders three years ago, I cringed at the idea. I thought "You're going to go into cellular companies and try to convince them to offer a service that reduces people's use of cellphones?" But they convinced me of the business model, and they have done yeoman's work to get endorsements from major insurance brands, the NHTSA, and a multitude of other highway safety advocacy groups. So now carrier's have a target market: parents and employers, they have a safety-raising product that insurance companies endorse with their wallets, and they have a choice to get ahead of distracted driving, or to do nothing. We'll see.
To be clear: this isn't a law, this isn't ever mandatory, this is the decision of a parent, a guardian, an employer, or whomever owns the payment responsibility for a cellular phone account. Neat idea for the market to decide.
Derek Kerton,
Occasional Techdirt Blogger
Telecom Consultant
www.kertongroup.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Work With The Company That Does This
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalism In Action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MOBILE phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Idea Has Lots Of Potential
Thanks (even though you are being sarcastic). This is a service that initially sounds bad to anyone. Our initial reaction is negative, because of course we first think of the Aegis service as something that will limit "ME"! But when we think of our teenagers being limited, or commercial drivers - we start to see this may have appeal. Nobody wanted hands free laws for themselves, but over 70% of people wanted them applied to others. Graduated driver's licenses are another limitation we have no problem supporting, because it was only imposed on teens.
Not every company I work with ends up a winner, for sure. But I'm actually very optimistic here. Not only has Aegis gotten lots of industry support (NHTSA, insurance companies), but if you read comments
2, 4, 6, 10, 18, 20, 25, 30, 33, 35
in this thread, each one of them believes the idea has appeal. That's a very high number, especially based on a Techdirt post that positioned the idea very negatively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Idea Has Lots Of Potential
Thanks (even though you are being sarcastic). This is a service that initially sounds bad to anyone. Our initial reaction is negative, because of course we first think of the Aegis service as something that will limit "ME"! But when we think of our teenagers being limited, or commercial drivers - we start to see this may have appeal. Nobody wanted hands free laws for themselves, but over 70% of people wanted them applied to others. Graduated driver's licenses are another limitation we have no problem supporting, because it was only imposed on teens.
Not every company I work with ends up a winner, for sure. But I'm actually very optimistic here. Not only has Aegis gotten lots of industry support (NHTSA, insurance companies), but if you read comments
2, 4, 6, 10, 18, 20, 25, 30, 33, 35
in this thread, each one of them believes the idea has appeal. That's a very high number, especially based on a Techdirt post that positioned the idea very negatively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]