Chicago Politicians Say Mobile Phones Should Block Kids From Texting While Driving

from the technological-realities dept

Thu, May 5th 2011 12:10pm — Mike Masnick

A few years back, there were some reports of tools that would "block" people from texting while driving by simply disabling the feature if the phone was moving over a certain speed. It was targeted at parents to put on their kids' phones, but we haven't seen much of an indication that it's gained any traction. No worries, politicians to the rescue. Gregil10 points us to the news that "an influential group of Chicago aldermen," are pushing for a law that would require such software be placed on any mobile phone sold in Chicago, which could then be enabled by the parents (or, I guess, by the user themselves).

Of course, the same problems that we discussed a few years back apply (and haven't been solved). If you think kids won't figure out how to get around such things, you haven't seen kids and their mobile phones lately. They understand the devices better than parents. Even if a parent can figure out how to enable the software, you can bet kids will figure out how to disable it.

An even bigger issue is that blocking texting based on the speed of travel is a really broad brush for trying to stop texting while driving. Speed of travel isn't a very good proxy for whether or not someone is driving. It may be a good indication that someone is travelling in a vehicle, but that hardly means they're controlling the vehicle. And, it really doesn't make sense to block texting for passengers. In fact, allowing passengers to communicate in this way often serves as a good way to stop drivers from texting, because they can ask a passenger to handle the texting instead. Or if someone's on a bus or a train, should they really be stopped from texting? Often, that's when people use such functionality the most, letting others (such as parents!) know that they got on the bus or train and would be arriving on time/late/early/etc.

I certainly recognize the risks of texting and driving. And it's no secret that many, many kids do engage in this incredibly risky and stupid behavior. But laws like this don't solve the real problem. Instead, they just create even more problems.

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: blocks, chicago, driving, kids, mobile phones, texting

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 11:36am

"Or if someone's on a bus or a train, should they really be stopped from texting? Often, that's when people use such functionality the most"

Bravo. Fits my situation in Chicago perfectly. I don't text while driving, but I do while on the El.

This smacks of DRM and gun laws, where the target of the measure will be the ones most UNeffected....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re:
Same here. Or... I could just yack it up really loudly when the El is crowded. Maybe that is what these stupid alderman want. These alderman are incredibly ludditish. Mine does not even have an email contact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 12:21pm

Rumor has it that this feature is already built into smartphones, but we can't get the kids to tell us how to turn it on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 12:29pm

Texting can be dangerous even when your not driving. I have, on more than one occasion, seen people walk right out into traffic becasue they were busy texting.

And let's not forget the mall fountain lady.

Just ask Kwame Kilpatrick (ex-mayor of Detroit) how dangerous texting can be. It cost him his job and some jail time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 5 May 2011 @ 12:31pm

All they have to do is root the phone
With smartphones exploding and many if not most kids having one, all they will have to do is root the phone to get rid of the app. For every measure, there is a counter measure. Just ask RIAA, MPAA, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 12:36pm

Something like this would really make my phone almost useless to me.
I don't text while driving. I don't even own a vehicle. What I do do is use the phone while sitting on the bus, on the train, or as a passenger in another person's vehicle.
If I can't use the phone in those situations, then I'm pretty much reduced to using the phone while sitting at home where I have both a landline and internet service, or else at work, where my employer would prefer that I be doing other things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 5 May 2011 @ 12:37pm

"many kids do engage in this incredibly risky and stupid behavior."

Kids involved in risky behavior? Now your just making shit up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 12:38pm

Re:
thinning the herd, not necessarily a bad thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re:
They don't drive themselves around either
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 12:42pm

Re:
Speaking of gun laws, police firearms should prevent officers from shooting innocent people. Find a way to do that too, Chicago aldermen, mmkay?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 5 May 2011 @ 1:06pm

Stupid, stupid, stupid little minds....
You cannot legislate something to overcome sheer STUPIDITY!

If some idiot wants to text at over 102 feet per second and a cop sees them then they should be:
- Charged criminally
- Stripped of their license
- Forced to go to classes
- If they do it again ramp up the punishment, ie. jail
- Habitual offender, strip license for life and lots of jail time.

Gee, sounds like the punishment for drunk driving.

I will tell you this though:
I would rather be on the road with a drunk that is watching the road than a teenager that is watching their phone...

Remember drunks, the bright line is the real line...

Oh, the Subject line; trivia, what movie was that saind in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 5 May 2011 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: the heard...
Not unless it's you or someone importaint to you that they kill, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 1:09pm

Hey, Chicago!
Just put your kids up for adoption. The city obviously feels perfectly suited for parenting and your efforts are only getting in the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wise (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 1:10pm

This reminds me of a family getting ready to have a child, they 'child-proof' everything in the home, the car, etc. all to benefit the possibility of the child meeting with the inevitable curiosity to poke metal objects into those slots in the wall.

Except this is in the case of trying to 'idiot-proof' everything we do. All agree that it's stupid to talk, text or otherwise look away from the road while driving, but people do what they want, trying to make a law requiring something frivolous just to prevent troll lawyers from taking advantage of non-accountability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 1:16pm

But your honor ! . . .
. . . I wasn't texting and driving.

I was updating my Facebook status.

- - - -
Frnds don't let frnds txt n drv.
A good frnd holds the wheel while the drvr txts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 5 May 2011 @ 1:23pm

Re: But your honor ! . . .
Judge:
You are hearby sentanced to 50 years for second degree murder in the death of the family that you killed while updating your facebook status...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 1:23pm

wouldnt using the GPS all the time eat up battery power like crazy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A non-mouse, 5 May 2011 @ 1:34pm

Required, but optional?
...a law that would require such software be placed on any mobile phone sold in Chicago, which could then be enabled by the parents...

One problem: Hardly any parents will enable said software, else they suffer the wrath of little Johnny who can't text while sitting on the bus. Or on the train. Or in their backseat.

Not that it matters, this will never pass. Even if it did, the mobile manufacturers are not going to bend over for Chicago. We're talking about a city here, not a country. It would be much cheaper for them to just stop selling their product within city limits. This is just another example of some really short-sighted thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 1:37pm

and how..
exactly is a phone supposed to know that the person holding the phone is driving a car as opposed to simply sitting in the back seat?

Politicians are so incredibly stupid; they think there is a technological solution for every problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 1:41pm

not to mention ...
people could just go a mile outside the city of chicago and buy phones there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe P, 5 May 2011 @ 2:09pm

Tech community saying
There's a saying that's popular in the tech community:

"There are seldom technological solutions for behavioral problems." - Ed Crowley

I think all the problems in caveats in trying to make software that stops texting while driving is a perfect example of how true the saying is.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 2:18pm

People are gonna die no matter what
Let them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doug D (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: But your honor ! . . .
You miss his point. Blocking Texting would not stop the kids from using FB. Just as dangerous, just as stupid, still totally possible at 50 MPH.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 3:00pm

Re: Stupid, stupid, stupid little minds....
yes, the only way to regulate stupidity is to litigate not legislate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 3:10pm

Re: But your honor ! . . .
BTW, this post was from me.
I did not realize I was not logged in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anymouse (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 3:50pm

Re: Required, but optional?
Assuming there is more than one phone in the vehicle, the phones should just talk to each other to figure out who is driving.....

Sure I'm serious, if the vehicle is heading north
and there are 2 phones in the vehicle, the westernmost phone is obviously the driver (assuming we are in the US and not England). If there are 3-4 phones in the vehicle, then the western most northern most phone is the 'driver'... in a bus, same principle applies, if you aren't in the 'driver seat' position of the vehicle, then you aren't driving and can text away with no problem. If your phone is the only one in the vehicle then obviously you are the driver and can't text (there isn't anyone out there who doesn't have a mobile phone, and might happen to be be driving while you are riding in the passenger seat texting, right?)

Sure there are logic holes (what if the vehicle is going backwards... or a double decker buss...), what if you are in the backseat and have the only phone in the vehicle... and missing technology to allow the phones to 'talk nicely'.

For any stupid idea, there are stupid and 'less stupid' ways to implement things, of course the political choice would probably be the broader more stupid method of limiting all moving phones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anymouse (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 4:07pm

Next up... vehicles will be required to have RFID tags in the Drivers seat
The next law will require all vehicles to be 'retrofitted' with RFID tags in the drivers seat that the mobile phone will 'read' to tell if the driver is the one using the phone and if so it will limit all functions of the phone.....

No I'm not serious, but I am claiming this ideas as my Intellectual Pooperty....(because I know it's a load of crap). Anyone attempting to implement this idea with paying the proper licensing fee of $500 per vehicle will suffer the wrath of 1000 monkey lawyers flinging their intellectual pooperty... They look like a cross between the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz and the ape men from Plane of the Apes, just in case anyone is wondering what monkey lawyers flinging Intellectual pooperty might look like...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 4:36pm

Maybe if two phones are nearby each other the blockage feature can be disabled, but if there is no phone next to another phone and you're traveling reasonably quickly, you can be assumed to be the driver.

But what if the driver forgot her cell phone or doesn't have one, should the passenger then be assumed to be the driver?

Maybe if the passenger can prove she doesn't have a drivers license, the disabling 'feature' can be permanently disabled? (assuming those without licenses won't drive).

But what if the passenger does have her license?

Maybe the car can have something that indicates its location and if the alleged passenger is in the passengers car and the passengers cell phone is the only one in the car then it could reasonably be assumed that the 'passenger' is really the driver? Buses and public transportation vehicles can also have ways of indicating their presence to disable this alleged safety feature.

I'm sure that will create problems too, and people can find ways to hack it regardless, but it's at least a start?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 4:42pm

Besides, if politicians were really interested in driving safety they would abolish taxi cab monopolies.

I think the OP is another typical case of

If it ain't broken then politicians have nothing to grandstand over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Erik Wood, 5 May 2011 @ 4:57pm

text and drive and...technology.
I think legislation has value in raising public awareness in forums like this one but it will be difficult to solely legislate our way out of this issue. I just read that 72% of teens text daily - many text more 4000 times a month. New college students no longer have email addresses! They use texting and Facebook - even with their professors. This text and drive issue is in its infancy and its not going away.

I decided to do something about distracted driving after my three year old daughter was nearly run down right in front of me by a texting driver. Instead of a shackle that locks down phones and alienates the user (especially teens) I built a tool called OTTER that is a simple GPS based, texting auto reply app for smartphones. It also silences call ringtones while driving unless you have a bluetooth enabled. I think if we can empower the individual then change will come to our highways now and not just our laws.

Erik Wood, owner
OTTER LLC
OTTER app
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 8:13pm

Re:
Simple solution, just have the car/bus/train driver slam on the brakes if you need to text for a minute. It's perfectly safe, and nobody will be inconvenienced in the least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cowardly mouse, 5 May 2011 @ 8:14pm

Missing the best option.
Put the drivers seat in a Faraday cage. Let's see, at cell frequencies that would pretty much be the equivalent of the screen in your microwave oven window...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 8:15pm

Re:
Perhaps disable texting while walking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andy (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 9:26pm

I would like to make it illegal for politicians to speak before engaging their brains.

Seriously, I suppose the tendency to resort to legislation as a cure for all ills is the result of a culture in which politicians (and many times, the public) see their job as "lawmakers". If your job is to make laws, that is what you will do even though legislation is many times not the appropriate solution.

These cases are already covered by plenty of laws so one more on the books will not help. But education campaigns to help stigmatize these practices (as has been successfully done with drunk driving in many places) would be a better use of resources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2011 @ 1:28am

In New Zealand and Australia it is illegal to send text messages/operate a cell phone whilst driving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
quimoi, 6 May 2011 @ 2:49am

the unintended case for a ban
Kidnappers love a block on mobile phones while their moving.

Any jurisdiction that finds way of applying this = child abductor's paradise, don't even have to search the kiddies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 6 May 2011 @ 6:25am

Re: Re: But your honor ! . . .
Yes, you miss my point. Two of them.

Technical measures to block phones from texting while the phone is in motion are a major fail for two reasons.

1. Blocking texting while in motion (eg, driving a car) does not block other dangerous activities done on the phone. Should we also implement a technical measure to block changing the music selection your phone is playing? What about a non-phone device like mp3 player? Should the web browser be blocked?

2. Blocking texting while in motion penalizes people in motion who are not driving. I can't say to my daughter, while I'm driving: "hey, text mom and tell her we're on the way.".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 6 May 2011 @ 6:27am

Re:
Yes it does. That's why car chargers were invented thousands of years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 6 May 2011 @ 6:29am

Remember the DARPA challenge?
Instead of the futile and pointless attempt to manipulate the technology of phones to block texting while driving, government money should instead be redirected to the development of self driving cars.

That is the only real long term solution to all possible driver distractions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 6 May 2011 @ 7:34am

Just kids? What about adults? lol

So if the 'kid' is riding the bus, they'd get blocked too huh?

What if they were kidnapped, and in the back of a van... get blocked too?

Let the above happen *once* and see what happens.

And yes, that has in fact happened in the past, not sure that she was in a vehicle at the time, but she could very well have been, and certainly this could happen in the future.

http://www.mlnlaw.com/Articles/Georgia-Teen-Thwarts-Sexual-Assault-and-Kidnapping-with-Text-Mess age.shtml

Do they consider anything when looking at new 'laws', outside of what potential votes it may bring them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gerald Robinson (profile), 6 May 2011 @ 7:46am

Texting
Billboard at a local church:
"Honk if you love Jesus
Text while driving if you want to meet him soon!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 6 May 2011 @ 8:06am

Re:
It is illegal in Chicago and Illinois too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 6 May 2011 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re: the heard...
> Not unless it's you or someone importaint to you
> that they kill, right?

In this instance, we're talking about people walking into traffic while texting. In that case, "they" aren't killing anyone. People are killing themselves by doing stupid shit.

So no, I don't believe I'm at risk of being killed because I'm dumb enough to walk out onto a busy street without looking first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 6 May 2011 @ 5:22pm

Texting while driving
So, if there are any negatives, nothing can be done? If someone might be harmed by a medicine that is known to be the only cure for a devastating disease, we ban the medicine?

I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]