Transportation Secretary Expects To Use Technology To Block All Mobile Phone Usage In Cars [Updated]
from the unintended-consequences... dept
We've noted in the past that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has long been an advocate of wider bans on various technologies in cars. Just last month he said he hoped to have a complete ban on talking to any kind of device in your car, including mobile phones, telematics systems like OnStar, and GPS systems. His latest argument (as sent in by quite a few of you) is to suggest that perhaps the US government will mandate technology that blocks a mobile phone from working while the car is moving. We've talked about this technology before (though I'm having trouble finding earlier posts on it). It would simply recognize if the phone is moving at a certain rate of speed and then block the phone from being used. LaHood seems to like the idea:"There's a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we're looking at that," said LaHood on MSNBC.... "I think it will be done," said LaHood. "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. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives."Of course, it's unclear why passengers shouldn't be able to use mobile phones while in a car (or bus or train) as well. There are also different ways that this can work, whether with scramblers or with software installed on the phone but, in either case, you could see it banning phone calls in perfectly safe situations (on a train or a bus?). Once again, this seems like overkill. Furthermore, it will almost certainly have unintended consequences. We've already pointed to some recent research that showed that driving-while-texting bans increased accidents, as drivers kept on texting, but hid their phones lower, taking their eyes even further off the road.
No one denies that distracted driving is quite dangerous. But we shouldn't be rushing into simply banning stuff or mandating blocks without thinking through the actual implications of that.
Update: LaHood is now claiming that his remarks were misrepresented. However, it's not clear that's the case. He restates the first part of what he said on MSNBC and doesn't say anything about the second part -- when he was pushed on whether or not the tech would become mandated, and he said "I think it will be done." In his response, he seems to ignore that part of what he said...
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: distracted driving, driving, ray lahood, technology
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think you mean Transportation.
Feel free to delete this when you correct it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact I do... Oops. Fixed. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long overdue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long overdue
Whew. You almost spilled your coffee on your map. That would have made you cut yourself shaving...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you write good algorithms that can work in the network servers to differentiate the motion of a car from the motion of a train or bus, that can solve that problem. The passenger/driver problem is more difficult.
This can be achieved through manual over-ride. Yep, simply clicking a button that says either "I am 12 and don't drive", or " I don't have a license and don't drive" or "I am not driving right now". Now, I know that may sound like a pain, but it works.
And don't forget, I'm not LaHood. I don't think this should be forced on the general public as a law. However, I do think that employers with fleets or parents should be able to push a rule like this out to their organizations.
I'm also a little disappointed that the Techdirt comment crowd hasn't been able to "independently invent" these simple workarounds that can make such technology much more tolerable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you keep someone who *is* driving from clicking the "I am not driving right now" button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No answer? Of course not, considering how idiotic the suggestion was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I just don't spend all my time on the blog.
What is idiotic is not having the simple creativity to think of the solution I typed in response, below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But the result of triggering this over-ride is that either a message (SMS, e-mail) or a report (weekly, monthly) is sent to the employer or parent paying the bill.
Thus done, the decision to over-ride is not taken lightly. People will use it when truly appropriate, and when they can provide a good reason/excuse to the employer or parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Method
Of course there will be a very active (and I'd guess large) group that will go and remove the software or any other technological block because they'd recognize that it is a ridiculous block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Method
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Method
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, we should ban dangerous things while driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, we should ban dangerous things while driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, we should ban dangerous things while driving
For more information on this dangerous chemical first visit http://www.dhmo.org/ and then get more information on Dihydrogen Monoxide ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hallelujah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hallelujah!
There is something rather funny about this sentence. Perhaps they should get somebody else to drive them around. Or there is the alternative of just turning off the device meant to contact them. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hallelujah!
If I turned off the device they would know I'm trying to prevent them from reaching me... which is bad, cause we have to "care". I'm hoping for an alibi in Uncle Sam....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hallelujah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hallelujah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another politician overstepping his authority
After raising the idea, Department of Transportation says it�s not interested in cell phone jamming technology in cars
In early 2009, the Washington D.C. Department of Corrections petitioned the FCC to experiment with phone jamming technology. Prison officials had contended that they need the technology to prevent inmates from using contraband cell phones to plan breakouts. After first permitting the jamming technology, the FCC backed away. Later that year, legislation introduced by Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to allow phone jamming in prisons was referred to a subcommittee.
The FCC stepped back because while it recognized the issues prison officials faced, tech blog Ars Technica noted that �rules are rules, and Section 333 of the Communications Act specifically forbids any �willful or malicious interference� with licensed radio signal.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another politician overstepping his authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another politician overstepping his authority
Jamming a signal is still interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another politician overstepping his authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another politician overstepping his authority
The motion sensing approach would might be able to get around the �willful or malicious interference� with licensed radio signal.� part of this proposed fix since it would not interfere directly with the radio signal by jamming it, only disable the phone calling feature. Like "Airplane Mode" on an iPhone, only you would not be in control of the switch.
To make it work the government would have to make sure every current cell phone has the capability to be GPS tracked in real-time which can be done (roughly) by many if not all cell phones in use today whether or not they have a GPS feature on it (E911).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another politician overstepping his authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good example of intellegence: Ray LaHood edition
Not to be a killjoy, but how the hell would this technology know if you're a passenger or in the driver's seat, because it seems Ray LaHood's is going to assume your always driving if you're moving..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good example of intellegence: Ray LaHood edition
So maybe Ray LaHood saw the same thing and you know, not to be a killjoy, but how the hell would this technology know if you're a passenger or in the driver's seat, because it seems Ray LaHood's is going to assume your always driving if you're moving..? What fancy gadgets will have to be installed either by the customer or network operator and which defense contractor (now that we're unwinding the wars) will be in charge of it's implementation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once this is in place....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wife: Honey, the phone is dead. I can't call my mom.
Dad: Our phone is not dead, it's been blocked by the government.
They will block you from calling to implement the NWO. Get your bible and your family, leave your house and head to the wilderness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better yet !
I suggest passing a law that all cell phones must have a cord and be tethered to a walk in box (on the side of the road or in a bus or train etc) this way only passengers can use them.
Pedestrians will not be distracted walking across the road while texting and loud people won't be herd inside the "Cell phone-box".
Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better yet !
Hold on, we should require all women to wear birkas since they can distract drivers when they are walking on the street. Actually, we should require all men to wear birkas since they can distract drivers when they are walking on the street too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better yet !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
50 years of radio are also responsible for deaths too.
They kill people too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 50 years of radio are also responsible for deaths too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 50 years of radio are also responsible for deaths too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldnt work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if you have an emergency to report and *can't* stop?
You're wife has just had a stroke and you're calling the emergency room, since even a few seconds delay in treatment can make all the difference.
You witness a carjacking and the 'jackers come after you.
All of the above are plausible scenarios where the ban is very likely to get someone or someones dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And if you have an emergency to report and *can't* stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And if you have an emergency to report and *can't* stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We all see things from our own perspectives, I guess.
I patently reject this idea, and I am demonstrably a liberal. This is a bad idea, applying bad science to questionable conclusions based on grotesque and off-handed rhetoric in order to pretend to attain a morally indignant and undeserved smugness. Should we ban all rocks from dirt because we know that's where creepy crawlies are born from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could this be any stupider?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban Cars
MAKE CARS ILLEGAL...
No more accidents :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban Cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am curious....
All these cars with jammers flying by you...airways getting jammed....and you can't call for help...Good old Bob, the 14 time convicted mass murderer stops by to "help" you...yeah I see bad things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes life a lot easier for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever try to eat a greasy cheezburger while driving
Shiny things (CDs) hanging from the rear view mirror.
Radios, CD players and 8-Tracks (non of which are really in use)
Eating, drinking, smoking
screaming children, car seats, pets
Angry girlfriends, mother-in-laws, grandpas
Seat belts (i find them distracting and dangerous)
Nose trimmers, shavers, makeup kits, eyeliner, powder kits
Changing clothes (passengers and drivers)
Open windows/sunroof (inbound debris is dangerous)
What are the studies that show cellphone usage is dangerous? Has anyone considered the reason for vehicle occupants at the scene of a fatal accident having a phone is that they were calling for help with their last bit of energy. To quote the NFL commentators "COME ON MAN!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever try to eat a greasy cheezburger while driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two way radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two way radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not
Problem solved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two way radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already do this, and I don't hear complaints...
We already have laws against passengers drinking in a moving vehicle (or at least having an open container) on the grounds that its impossible to distinguish who was doing the activity, and its so dangerous that we need to prevent the driver from having the opportunity to do it.
Studies have suggested that, over a large sample size, cell use is just as dangerous as DUI. I'm just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We already do this, and I don't hear complaints...
The cell phone test is all based off of higher thinking than anyone does in real life (who here does long division in their heads?). The driving course is a police stile course with random twists and turns with even crash avoidance (and parallel parking). During all that the drivers are focusing more on the conversation then they would be in reality (it's a test, that can't be avoided).
I'm not saying that cell phones can't be a problem, I'm saying the tests are invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We already do this, and I don't hear complaints...
No more so than the drinking and driving studies. And it turns out that people were actually more impaired by the cell phone than by drinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We already do this, and I don't hear complaints...
But using a phone can be very safe if the person exercises judgment such as when to use it, for how long, and to put it down if necessary. In any case, the duration can be very short, at least the more dangerous parts which is when manually dialing or trying to read.
OK, people talk in the car, listen to radio, read signs, and do many things that are just as dangerous or more so than the few moments they are using the phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We already do this, and I don't hear complaints...
Same thing for drinking and driving. If I actually drive better after a few drinks, then why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We already do this, and I don't hear complaints...
> the activity
Ah, yes. The kindergarten approach to government:
"It's too hard for us to single out the bad behavior, so we'll just punish everyone."
I expect better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two separate issues
Obviously it shouldn't be texting only that should be illegal, it should be illegal not to have your eyes on the road for any unreasonable amount of time. Whether this is to text, to read a map or study your co-passenger's body features.
Unfortunately Ray LaHood is just trying to appear to be doing something. He's ignoring the obvious overkill in his proposal - what's wrong with a passenger using a phone or using a phone in a bus or train, and why wouldn't it be OK to make an emergency call or use a handsfree set?
Emergency calls can save lives so technology blocking such calls could potentially costs lives too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two separate issues
Using the phone in the car does lead to some efficiencies (eg, getting directions when you are lost), and you can gain that skill like any other skill or ability to handle distractions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile...
So they won't be able to tell you that you are driving directly towards a washed out road after a dam bursts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm okay with this
I want a credit from my wireless company each month equal to anytime I was unable to use my phone.
I also want permission to start a fire in my car and send smoke signals in the event I need to report a drunk driver or other crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slippery slopes indeed
arggg!!! yes, i see the idea behind this and agree it could be very helpful and good for most drivers. but what we need is not a way to block phones, but integrate them into the car itself. why aren't the car makers being pressured to finally redo their electronic consoles and require all to have handsfree systems? seems like a more logical decision than to pull the old, lets just block cop-out.
just this geeks .02....
plus, not like we can't find a jammer and remove it from our cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: slippery slopes indeed
I actually think talking to a passenger is more dangerous than making a hands-free call. When you're talking to someone, there's a natural tendency to make eye contact with them, thereby taking your eyes off the road.
The technology is already here. I'm sure the automobile industry will fight against this. I also agree, there's no way to distinguish if your a driver or a passenger in a bus, train, boat, or car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blue tooth and text to speach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, it could just be that all the coverage goes to rights restrictions (especially in my particular blend of information sources), and there's a heap of good legislation being passed in the background, but I don't think that's the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not to mention the clean environment (may stink a little)no more auto car bail outs (got to love that) traffic jams are a thing of the past, wow, this idea is almost genius; im so great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would be absurd.
In other words, when we look at the amount of times someone looks at something not directly in front of them (such as a billboard on the side of the road, for example) and then swerves left of center or worse, crashes into someone else or something else, we don't consider making it illegal to look at billboards, etc. or anything not directly in front of us. Instead, we make it illegal to swerve left of center, crash, etc, regardless the reason... i.e, if you can't operate a vehicle safely with all the distractions around you, then your driving behavior reflects it and you get ticketed.
I will be the first to admit that when I first got a cell phone YEARS ago, I noticed that I was driving extremely slow (I was subconsciously wrapped up in the conversation and trying to maintain safety while driving, resulting in an excessive reduction in speed). I immediately recognized this is ridiculous, because it shouldn't be any different than talking to a passenger beside me.
That's when I figured out that my use of a land line all my life put my brain into a 'mode' when I talked on a phone where I did not necessarily have to pay attention to what's around me. Talking to a passenger in a car, I was willing to bet, if studied would yield results that showed less comprehension of the conversation than when on a phone conversation due to the 'mode' your brain goes into from significant past experience talking to passengers in your car.
That being said, I was able to very quickly adjust my 'mode' of thinking when I spoke on a cell phone that is the same mode I am in when I am talking to a passenger. My attention is on the road, the conversation is secondary. The phone often is pulled away from my ear if I must look any direction other than in front of me, it's muscle memory by now, regardless if I or the person on the other end of the line is in mid-sentence. I simply switch lanes (for example), pull the phone back up to my ear and say "Repeat that please?" I have no worry in the world of 'offending' anyone I am talking to, as they can go fly a kite if they don't like it. I am sure there are many people who have learned how to use their phones while driving in the same attention focus as when they have a passenger in the car and are talking to them. After all, try can count how many times you see someone who is driving and talking on a phone who does NOT swerve, or otherwise drive erratically. I do this on a regular basis, and they far out number those who drive erratically or unsafe. We only hear from the anti-cell crowd who vents about all the drivers they see on cell phones and perhaps at times LOOK for any sign of illegal driving, otherwise known as confirmation bias.
The point here being that just as we learn to deal with distractions on the road in driver's ed. class and have since learned to navigate quite efficiently even taking a slight gander at one of those distractions here and there. We don't criminalize 'taking ganders' because some people haven't figured out how to drive with billboards, etc. on the side of the road.
As well, we shouldn't ban cell phones just because some people can't navigate while talking on one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This would be absurd.
In other words, when we look at the amount of times someone looks at something not directly in front of them (such as a billboard on the side of the road, for example) and then swerves left of center or worse, crashes into someone else or something else, we don't consider making it illegal to look at billboards, etc. or anything not directly in front of us. Instead, we make it illegal to swerve left of center, crash, etc, regardless the reason... i.e, if you can't operate a vehicle safely with all the distractions around you, then your driving behavior reflects it and you get ticketed.
I will be the first to admit that when I first started drinking YEARS ago, I noticed that I was driving extremely slow (I was subconsciously wrapped up in the drinking and trying to maintain safety while driving, resulting in an excessive reduction in speed). I immediately recognized this is ridiculous, because it shouldn't be any different than drinking as a passenger.
That's when I figured out that my drinking in a bar all my life put my brain into a 'mode' when I drank where I did not necessarily have to pay attention to what's around me. Drinking in a bar, I was willing to bet, if studied would yield results that showed less comprehension of the conversation than when drinking in a car due to the 'mode' your brain goes into from significant past experience drinking in a bar.
That being said, I was able to very quickly adjust my 'mode' of thinking when I drank that is the same mode I am in when I am drinking as a passenger. My attention is on the road, the drinking is secondary. The bottle often is pulled away from my mouth if I must look any direction other than in front of me, it's muscle memory by now, regardless if I am in mid-swallow. I simply switch lanes (for example), pull the bottle up to my mouth and take another swig. I have no worry in the world of 'offending' anyone I am drinking with, as they can go fly a kite if they don't like it. I am sure there are many people who have learned how to drink while driving in the same attention focus as when they have a passenger in the car and are drinking with them. After all, try can count how many times you see someone who is driving and drinking who does NOT swerve, or otherwise drive erratically. I do this on a regular basis, and they far out number those who drive erratically or unsafe. We only hear from the anti-drinking crowd who vents about all the drivers they see drinking and perhaps at times LOOK for any sign of illegal driving, otherwise known as confirmation bias.
The point here being that just as we learn to deal with distractions on the road in driver's ed. class and have since learned to navigate quite efficiently even taking a slight gander at one of those distractions here and there. We don't criminalize 'taking ganders' because some people haven't figured out how to drive with billboards, etc. on the side of the road.
As well, we shouldn't ban drink-driving just because some people can't navigate while drinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This would be absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This would be absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This would be absurd.
No, Mr. LaHood is against using phones while driving. I'm all for it. And drinking as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
911
I'm sure blocking that signal would have made all drivers on the road much safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
911 calls
I were having a problem and NEEDED to call someone from inside my car. What if it were not safe to turn off the car or leave the car? There is also the large issue of cell phone service being technologically available EVERYWHERE, but DENIED in certain geographical areas for various reasons.
2. Should CD players be allowed to be used inside a car? Should CD players be disabled while the car is running to the extent that CD's could not be changed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another bad example of to much government control
Drinking and driving is still a major problem in the United States and yet I don't see the government trying to ban alcohol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My 15 yr old daughter IS very attached to her phone (as are her friends/passengers). If her friends are rec'ing texts/photos, they will add more distraction sharing the info w/ my daughter. The vehicle/device should jam signals while the vehicle is in motion (GPS based/gyro based). Jamming would stop w/ vehicle stopping (parking, accident, etc). A moving vehicle could ONLY contact E911 (allowing driver to rep diabetic shock, heart attack, etc).
I am VERY liberal! My only concern is that my daughter returns home SAFELY!!
I have NO desire to bury my 15 yr old daughter because she crashed (cell phone usage while driving) or someone else's 15 yr old daughter crashed INTO my daughter (cell phone usage while driving).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like you should be talking to her about her limitations, not forcing her limitations on everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology already exists to block cell phone use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]