U.S. Transportation Department Proposes Simplified 'Driver Mode' to Help Curb Distracted Driving

[LordVic]

Yesterday I was nearly killed at an intersection by someone on his smartphone. It was dark and raining so visibility was poor. I'm stopped at a stop sign and the the other driver is on a cross street approaching from my left with no stop signs. The guy ran off his lane directly at my driver's side door and stopped a few feet away.

The whole time I'm watching this clown I could see the telltale illumination of his face from below.

Current laws and education efforts aren't working. We see regular news reports of jackarses who hit stuff while texting. Half the time you can't even tell the difference between a drunk driver and a texting driver! Thus the "driver mode" proposal is at least a good start to an escalation of action against smartphoning while driving.

That said, I don't see how it could actually work since the car can't know if a smartphone is in use by the driver or a passenger. Maybe there is a way to pinpoint the location of the smartphone via a new bluetooth specification and force driver mode if the phone is in the driver's space?
[doublepost=1480018254][/doublepost]

Typical anti-government agitprop.

Government efforts to curb tobacco smoking are a resounding success.

Prohibition? Of course it didn't work, because there was no logical rational behind it and the public didn't support it. Very similar to cannabis prohibition.

Heroin ODs? Please. If Heroin was available at supermarkets next to the liquor aisle then of course there would be more ODs.

Government regulations have indisputably made our cars and roads safer. From seat belts to antilock brakes, regulations have accelerated the adoption of nascent safety technology.

As soon as I hear "because the guvment is bad!" I stop and ignore that person.

There's no logic here, it's an emotional response, and rarely has basis is fact.

I'm also not American, and my government tends to not be some super evil thing. Stuff gets debating in parliament, and experts involved.

I hate the current leadership in Ontario, they've made a lot of decisions I don't ideologically agree with, but I still have trust in them for many things regarding public safety.

And that's what they're there for.

Two arguments that always are used as emotional appeals without fact and logic.

"Because the governments are bad!" And "Do it for the children!"

They're nothing but emotional appeals.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Normal drivers kill 30000 people in the US alone... Software will only improve further. Humans won't

When a computer drives you off a cliff due to either programming error or computer hackers hacking the bluetooth or whatever system that lets cars talk to one another, I'll remind you of that statement.

Personally, I've never caused an accident in 23 years of driving, let alone killed someone and I'd trust my driving over some computer programmer or radar system any day of the week. I don't know how many times my Garmin has told me there's a bank or restaurant in the middle of a neighborhood or some road turn that doesn't exist or no longer exists. If a simple mapping GPS gets confused or has an error in it, what is an automatic car that bases its navigation on that data going to do when it finds an error like that? Drive in circles? Drive into a driveway and refuse to move? Turn off a cliff? I don't care to find out. I'll let YOU be the guinea pig.

Frankly, I think many kids today just want automatic cars because the only thing in life they care about is god damned social networking and texting and/or they're too damn lazy to drive. Maybe we should turn off cell towers for a year and see how people function. It'd be hilarious in a way. People are too damn dependent on cell phones and too damn addicted to Facebook. Go out and live life in the real world instead of a computer. Those poor bastards over in the Middle East wish that cyber bullying was the only problem they had in life.

ok, this could be good. but what about those cases where :

- someone texts you
- cannot pull over in traffic.
- But its an emergency..
- u don't have hands-free.

Exactly what "emergency" are you equipped to handle while driving that can't wait until you pull over or get back home? What did people do before cell phones when there was an emergency? Call 911. What did they do before 911 centers? They called the police or fire department or ambulance service DIRECTLY from their home phone. Those should STILL be posted on or by home phones in case 911 is busy or goes down. Someone's parent isn't going to be able to put out a fire or whatever on the freeway!

They need to disable smart phones period while driving save hands-free calling or the like. No OPTION. PERIOD. If someone needs to check a text so bad, let them pull over first (and I don't mean red lights; I'm sick of lights turning green and the other person on the other side just sits there until the light turns red again or damn close to it. I have to be at work. I have no time for people delaying me 2x the length of my commute out of sheer stupidity or carelessness about the world around them.

 

[hotsauce]

It's comical that people think hands free calling is safe. Distraction is a distraction. Can't tell you how many times I've missed a turn because I've been completely engrossed in a conversation via Bluetooth. Why stop at smart phones? How about women putting on makeup? People eating fries out of their drive through fast food orders? Scolding kids in the back seat? Why is the government picking and choosing what is and isn't a distraction?

 

[I7guy]

It's comical that people think hands free calling is safe. Distraction is a distraction. Can't tell you how many times I've missed a turn because I've been completely engrossed in a conversation via Bluetooth. Why stop at smart phones? How about women putting on makeup? People eating fries out of their drive through fast food orders? Scolding kids in the back seat? Why is the government picking and choosing what is and isn't a distraction?

Hands free calling is deemed legal and I do use it sometimes. Obvious taking your eyes and mind off the road is dangerous, which is why common sense can't be legislated. Eating fries is legal, although if your driving warrants it and you get caught you can get a ticket.

I would like to see out and out use of cellular phones in hands outlawed except for gps.

 

[macduke]

I know how the public works. I also know how the average teen behaves. "I'll put my phone in driver mode and then I can use it as much as I want!"

You want more people using their phone while driving? Because this is how you get more people using their phone while driving. The simple solution is to levy heavy fines and prison sentences. I'm not saying that you pull someone over because they're changing music tracks. What I am saying is that if an investigation deems you were being wreckless by being distracted while driving on your phone, then you should suffer extremely heavy consequences—especially if you kill someone. This should also apply to other distractions, such as eating while driving, doing makeup while driving, etc.

Distracted driving in general is the problem—not just distracted by phone driving. This is going to get a little off course from the main topic of discussion so feel free to stop reading here.

The underlying cause is a society that values productivity above all else. Corporations that expect their employees to always be connected through their phone. People who expect their texts to be returned immediately and freak out if you leave them on read. It's this drive to always feel up to date on everything except what really matters and is going on in the world—always connected to your personalized echo chamber of Facebook. It's a society that values appearance over substance. Of putting so much effort into looking like you have a fun, exciting life from the outside while secretely living in the shadow of depression, fear, shame or self-doubt. A society that lives and breathes making everything more efficient only so we can work more than ever without reaping the benefit unless we're at the very top of the ladder. A society that is ever moving faster and faster for the sake of progress without seeking out the wisdom of what it costs us. IMO it all comes at great expense. At the expense of our one and only planet—the perfect garden that civilization has wreaked havoc upon. It's at the expense of our relationships—spending time with family and friends and actually doing stuff together. It's at the expense of our well-being—the peace in our soul of feeling whole. The constant bombardment, the disconnected relationships, the slow-motion demolition of our environment is taking a toll whether we admit it or not. And it's a scary thing to admit because it means we have to question everything we know and think we care about. It challenges our very existence and questions our core rationalities. It creates an uncomfortable rift in our mind to think "Maybe we were wrong about almost everything?"

I'm not here to point fingers. I'm extremely guilty. I just find myself being very introspective of the human experience on this day of thanksgiving—as people are standing in lines to flood stores and trample their fellow man for $10 toasters. Why are we this way? Is there a better way of living in our modern age? What is most important to us, and how do we seek that instead of all the superfluous fluff that gets in the way? I wish I had an answer. A way of progressing not only our technologies and bank accounts but also our minds and relationships so that everything can work together in harmony and betterment of the common good. I love you all, yes even you jerks, have a good night.

 

[Vjosullivan]

"In total, the year had 385 fatal crashes that involved the use of a cell phone."

Doesn't seem like much of an epidemic.

As a percentage of the total population, perhaps not. As a percentage of fools who think they can drive safely and use their iPhone at the same time, more so.

 

[JamesPDX]

It stops when RF Jammers become cheap enough we just start installing them in theatres, cars, bicycles, police belts, trump rallies, and classrooms, and don't ask you to exercise good judgement and self control anymore.

Slippery Slope averted.

I think jamers are still used in Japan theaters. But I could be wrong.
Except that your talking about Obstruction of Corporate Wealth that have big plans for the IOT with automakers and cell phones. -You'd have to roll your own jammer and people would howl over the "inability to use 911" ruse. -There's a big blue panic/safe space button for emergencies.

 

[batchtaster]

I don't agree with that assessment.

• When you drive at night, do you have a footwell light on to know where the gas and brake pedal is?
• Do you see dome lights on at night within cars with a manual transmission, so those drivers know where the shifter is and what gear they are in?
• On your daily driver, do you need to look for your door handle, or do you know where it is, in order to exit your car at night without lights.
• Do you physically have to look at your stereo in your car to know where the knob is, then focus to know how to turn the volume up or down?
• Do you have to take your eyes off the road to locate your turn signal stalk to operate it to signal a lane change?
• When playing a video game, must you focus on the controller in order to play or, can you play it intuitively without consciously calculating what button to press or how hard?

In Automotive ergonomics there are two big psychological concepts that designers put into consideration and test against. The Human's ability for situational awareness, and, (muscle) memory. There are also standard input methods that are universal (example..Scrolling up = louder, or more, or higher, Scrolling down = quieter, less or lower), and because of that are intuitive. Many such inputs are designed to not require the users visual focus, after familiarity is established with a control system.

Touch screens require people to establish a visual frame of reference (Distraction away from driving), to establish where or what application one is in before operation. After that, users often need to reference that interface (look at the screen) to ensure the input was properly entered before proceeding to the next action.

There is a very good reason that many car controls and interfaces are so strongly regulated, and why R&D to implement them is such an expensive element in new model development. .

So, you believe we should get rid of every single thing in the car not directly related to driving. Because we did that with footwell and gearshift lights. Including environment controls, touch screens and visor mirrors. And children and passengers. Since you do need to take your eyes off the road.
Sounds like a plan. I don't foree any difficulties or problems in implementing this at all.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You want more people using their phone while driving? Because this is how you get more people using their phone while driving. The simple solution is to levy heavy fines and prison sentences.

Yes, make the taxpayer (including me) pay $50,000+ a year to keep someone in prison.... Yeah, that's a GREAT idea!

That seems to be society's answer to everything. Throw 'em in the slammer. We have more people in prison than Russia, China and North Korea and well EVERYONE. Yes, we are #1 for imprisoning people. "The Land of the Free". "The Land of the Imprisoned" would be more like it. We throw everyone in there. They smoked a doobie? Throw 'em in jail! They had underage sex? Throw them in Juvie. Basically, if our PURITAN LAWS are broken (i.e. you're not a right-wing extremist) we throw them in prison. Murder? Hell, they get out in 5 years here if it's in the inner city so they can go kill some more people. Evade your taxes? Hell, that's 10+ years. Contempt of court? (you're damn right I have contempt for our Supreme Court morons), that's indefinite. Did you know the grandsons of Francis Scott Key (writer of our national anthem) were jailed for speaking their mind during the civil war? That's right. Habeas Corpus was suspended along with Constitutional Rights. They could jail you for anything during the civil war and not bring you up for trial (kind of like Guantanamo). There was a certain hypocrisy about it, though given they claimed the South had committed high treason by separating from the Union (exactly what had George Washington done in regards to Great Britain???)

I'm not saying that you pull someone over because they're changing music tracks. What I am saying is that if an investigation deems you were being wreckless by being distracted while driving on your phone, then you should suffer extremely heavy consequences—especially if you kill someone. This should also apply to other distractions, such as eating while driving, doing makeup while driving, etc.

And I think you should be the first to go to jail if you so much as itch your nose while driving because what you're suggesting is unenforceable without being ridiculous. "What" constitutes a "distraction"; it spirals out of control if you suggest that we go beyond texting and other such smart phone activities. You can't pick up your can of soda and take a swig? Ridiculous. What's a distraction for one person is easily done by an another. If someone kills someone now due to distraction, there's already heavy fines and prison sentences. That doesn't deter anyone. In other words, you can't fix stupid. And you can't bring someone back from the dead AFTER the fact. In other words, a fine afterwards doesn't help. And it doesn't deter others because they never believe it will happen to them.

You'd have to have cameras in the car detecting illegal activity to deter things. Maybe a breath detector to start the engine too while we're at it? Those things might work, but is that the kind of country you want to live in? Do we really want to be more like North Korea?

 

[satcomer]

It is illegal in the UK to use a phone whilst driving. The US should make this law as well.

Adding a "driver mode" will simply encourage phone use whilst driving.

It's illegal in most states and on Federal land, only a small number of states have no such law.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

It's illegal in most states and on Federal land, only a small number of states have no such law.

Nonsense. You must be confusing texting and other smart phones usage with making a simple phone call. (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2465...s_state_by_state_where_you_break_the_law.html) There isn't ONE state where it's illegal to make a phone call from a cell phone while driving for the general public that isn't a beginner driver. Big rig truckers have been using CBs for decades while driving without a major issue. If you can't steer with one hand you shouldn't be on the road (let alone try driving a stick shift).

 

[I7guy]

Nonsense. You must be confusing texting and other smart phones usage with making a simple phone call. (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2465...s_state_by_state_where_you_break_the_law.html) There isn't ONE state where it's illegal to make a phone call from a cell phone while driving for the general public that isn't a beginner driver. Big rig truckers have been using CBs for decades while driving without a major issue. If you can't steer with one hand you shouldn't be on the road (let alone try driving a stick shift).

Outdated article New Jersey and New York laws e.g., do not allow use of cell phones while driving for anyone. And cb is an entirely different animal.

 

[techwarrior]

I would love if there was a way Apple could work with state govts to issue e-licenses for Wallet so that you can leave your house with only your phone and manage just fine

On its way. CO and a few other states expect to launch e-license in the coming years.

 

[techwarrior]

How to detect Driver v Passenger for Car-Mode: To enable Car Mode, use Car Play, Android Auto, or bluetooth pairing. To disable, don't pair to the car. When the device has car mode enabled, restrict calling, texting etc to hands free modes. Most of this is already in place.

When a device is detected to be in use in a vehicle (average 15mph movement for a certain duration), whether or not in car-mode, log all activity so as to provide police with usage meta data (not actual voice or text content, just the meta data of activity). Enable this on all devices via carrier settings. Make this meta data available to law enforcement via the carrier's database with an accident being probable cause to access the data. No other reasons for access would be permitted. Logs would upload to carrier whenever calls, messages, etc are used by the device and retained for 7 days unless law enforcement makes an inquiry following an accident. Again, just meta data, answered phone at 12:51PM via hands-free and talked for 3 minutes, placed call at 2:15PM via hands-free and talked for 2 minutes, received or sent text message at 4:20PM, 60 characters using manual mode, etc. Carrier records would ensure that privacy is upheld, no device access would be required.

To protect the privacy of passengers (or riders of public transit), install proximity sensors which would disable logging on any device not within reach of the driver. This would be optional, but a courtesy to passengers. It would also protect the driver from liability if a call or message was being performed on a passenger's device when the accident occurred. The sensors, at least one on either side of the vehicle, would make it possible for the device to detect if it was within reach of the driver.

So, if the driver did not choose to enable car mode, or used a passenger's device without sensors to rule out driver use, the logs would show it and fines and penalties would be stiff should an accident occur.

It will take years for cars and mobile devices to be capable of supporting this, but with insurance discounts for these systems, consumers might be encouraged to retrofit to accelerate the adoption.

 

[rcread]

I use an iPhone in my race car, connected via Bluetooth to a boat speaker for communication with the pit crew. Also great for snapchatting on the front straight (kidding).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Outdated article New Jersey and New York laws e.g., do not allow use of cell phones while driving for anyone. And cb is an entirely different animal.

Ok, cell phone STILL ALLOWED with hands-free there (and two states with stricter laws does not constitute "most states" stated previously):

http://handsfreeinfo.com/new-jersey-cell-phone-laws-legislation/
http://www.traffichearinglawyer.com/ny-cell-phone-use-and-texting-ticket-defense.php

But frankly, New York's law sounds ridiculous. A bunch of liberals (and I used to consider myself one until they all jumped off the cliff of ridiculous micro managing behavior, little different from the religious extremists that think they need to force their beliefs on everyone else on the extreme right) that feel they need legislate your life. I'll be sure and stay out of New York. More than one button to make a call hands free? What the frack do buttons on the steering wheel have to do with anything? Do they fine you for changing the radio station while driving too? Freaking nut jobs I say.

CBs are NOT different animals. You still have to pick up the transmitter and talk while holding it in your hand and change channels with your fingers. If you can't do that while driving, you should not be driving at all period because the least little thing like someone in the car saying "oh my" might have you flying off the road. There should be a certain level of skill/prowess while driving. Perhaps they should have a test during the license test involving picking up a mug of drink and taking a swig while driving down the road. If you swerve at all, you fail and aren't allowed to drive for life. LOL.

The problem with society anymore is that people think they can legislate all the problems away and micro manage your life. Some of us are SICK of that garbage. You take responsibility for your own life and if you aren't hurting anyone, it should be legal. Period. Other people telling you how to live or what to believe is how dictatorships behave, not civilized society.

 

[I7guy]

Ok, cell phone STILL ALLOWED with hands-free there (and two states with stricter laws does not constitute "most states" stated previously):

http://handsfreeinfo.com/new-jersey-cell-phone-laws-legislation/
http://www.traffichearinglawyer.com/ny-cell-phone-use-and-texting-ticket-defense.php

But frankly, New York's law sounds ridiculous. A bunch of liberals (and I used to consider myself one until they all jumped off the cliff of ridiculous micro managing behavior, little different from the religious extremists that think they need to force their beliefs on everyone else on the extreme right) that feel they need legislate your life. I'll be sure and stay out of New York. More than one button to make a call hands free? What the frack do buttons on the steering wheel have to do with anything? Do they fine you for changing the radio station while driving too? Freaking nut jobs I say.

CBs are NOT different animals. You still have to pick up the transmitter and talk while holding it in your hand and change channels with your fingers. If you can't do that while driving, you should not be driving at all period because the least little thing like someone in the car saying "oh my" might have you flying off the road. There should be a certain level of skill/prowess while driving. Perhaps they should have a test during the license test involving picking up a mug of drink and taking a swig while driving down the road. If you swerve at all, you fail and aren't allowed to drive for life. LOL.

The problem with society anymore is that people think they can legislate all the problems away and micro manage your life. Some of us are SICK of that garbage. You take responsibility for your own life and if you aren't hurting anyone, it should be legal. Period. Other people telling you how to live or what to believe is how dictatorships behave, not civilized society.

Well I agree with some (a lot) of what you say, but I thought you were referring to holding a cell phone in the hand. There are some states you can hold a cell phone and make a call, Arizona?, but yeah, you should be allowed to use a device hands-free responsibly, if you can operate the phone with your voice or steering wheel controls.

CBs are different animals. I had one built into the dash. Dial the channel number, which is not different than tuning a radio and pick up the mic and talk responsibly.

 

[JamesPDX]

What about those fancy cool cars with call buttons on the steering wheel? It's like super-car play.

 

[kdarling]

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet in this thread, but the reason why phone calls are more distracting than say, eating or drinking or changing channels, or even talking to a rear passenger, is because with a phone, the conversation is between the driver and someone NOT in the car.

Tests show this makes all the difference in the world, as the person NOT in the car does not see the surroundings and what's going on. So they continue to talk and engage your brain, even while you hurtle straight towards another car. Someone inside the car, or you yourself while eating, are not so disconnected from reality, and will pause or even give a warning.

 

[I7guy]

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet in this thread, but the reason why phone calls are more distracting than say, eating or drinking or changing channels, or even talking to a rear passenger, is because with a phone, the conversation is between the driver and someone NOT in the car.

Tests show this makes all the difference in the world, as the person NOT in the car does not see the surroundings and what's going on. So they continue to talk and engage your brain, even while you hurtle straight towards another car. Someone inside the car, or you yourself while eating, are not so disconnected from reality, and will pause or even give a warning.

That is certainly known to people who have read some of the studies.

Changing channels when taking your eyes off the road however, even for a split second can cause an accident as my son found out in an accident he caused by looking at the radio for a split second. So if the activity you are engaging with takes your eyes off the road you can't see danger, if your brain is disconnected from driving you at least have the capacity to react in the subconscious. Not that I am preaching to the choir, but driving is a full time activity and sometimes it's only realized after an unfortunate incident.

And while we're grousing about this topic, I want make special mention of people who drive with earpods dangling from their ears.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet in this thread, but the reason why phone calls are more distracting than say, eating or drinking or changing channels, or even talking to a rear passenger, is because with a phone, the conversation is between the driver and someone NOT in the car.

Tests show this makes all the difference in the world, as the person NOT in the car does not see the surroundings and what's going on. So they continue to talk and engage your brain, even while you hurtle straight towards another car. Someone inside the car, or you yourself while eating, are not so disconnected from reality, and will pause or even give a warning.

It's not the passenger's responsibility to tell the driver they're heading for a car that's not moving or whatever so I find that argument irresponsible at best. If you as the driver are heading for a dangerous situation, it is YOU that should stop talking and pay attention. Who cares if the other person is still yammering on? Or if they're wondering where you are, you say, "Hold On" and concentrate. This is exactly what I do and it's not a hard thing. As I've said before, if you cannot handle talking on the phone while driving or can't pick up a drink without swerving, you should probably not be driving in the first place (i.e. you're ALREADY a danger to other drivers). Frankly, I think if someone can't pass a driving test in a stick shift, they should probably not be allowed to drive (no hand-eye-foot coordination or ability to drive with one hand means you're already a POOR driver in my book).

Sadly, in the US there are too many areas where there are no other options (i.e. if you can't drive, you can't get/hold a job unless you have a spouse or someone that's willing to drive you to work every day). Outside of major cities, public transportation is virtually non-existent. But the driving tests to get a license are very VERY POOR in my opinion. Plus once the average teenager (there are exceptions of course) gets his/her license, they suddenly think all the rules go out the freaking window, especially when they're around other teenagers.

That is certainly known to people who have read some of the studies.

Changing channels when taking your eyes off the road however, even for a split second can cause an accident as my son found out in an accident he caused by looking at the radio for a split second. So if the activity you are engaging with takes your eyes off the road you can't see danger, if your brain is disconnected from driving you at least have the capacity to react in the subconscious. Not that I am preaching to the choir, but driving is a full time activity and sometimes it's only realized after an unfortunate incident.

Something tells me your son probably had his attention on the radio station for more than a "split second". Either that or he shouldn't be changing channels when in dense traffic where someone might suddenly hit the brakes. This is why we have safe following distances, something sadly MOST drivers just IGNORE as if no such laws existed. That's ONE car length for every 10mph of speed MINIMUM between you and the car in front of you. Tailgaters are the #1 cause of rear-end collisions.

And while we're grousing about this topic, I want make special mention of people who drive with earpods dangling from their ears.

ONE ear piece or pod is usually legal in most areas. You are not allowed to wear TWO or stereo headphones (where you might not hear traffic sounds, etc.)

 

[macduke]

Gruber seems to agree: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/11/28/driver-mode.

Blocking everyone — drivers and passengers alike — from using their phones in a moving vehicle is not going to fly. The only solution I can think of is to greatly increase the penalties for causing an accident while using your phone. We greatly decreased incidents of drunk driving the same way — serious legal penalties, combined with making the act socially unacceptable.

According to him, it worked for drunk driving. He's not one who tends to make up facts, so unless you can prove otherwise, I think it's a good idea. The penalties should be harsher for causing accidents while on the phone, full stop. Like anything else, an investigation will determine whether or not someone was distracted on their phone. They won't catch all offenders, but they will catch some, and catching some is enough to affect psychology and modify behavior in enough of the population to see benefit.

I agree that we lock more people away in this country than we should, however, as you say, there are already heavy fines and prison sentences. But they could be more severe if you don't kill someone and just seriously injure them or cause great hardship. Those fines should be heavier. Furthermore, there should be more restrictions on a person, such as taking away someone's license and even heavier fines for driving with a suspended license.

A major source of texting and driving is teenagers. As a parent, I don't think it's a terrible idea to have a parental control that at a minimum forces the device into do not disturb mode while driving, and at worst enables airplane mode. It would just detect any time a device is moving over 25mph and disable it. At the worst they can respond to texts at a traffic light. Or perhaps it could have a 2-3 minute cool down before you can use it after stopping, with only emergency numbers and maybe a whitelist of their parent's phone numbers allowed to be called while driving. The main problem is getting parents to enable this mode. But at least it's something and minimizes the risk of your own kid killing themselves. Personally I hope to educate my kids on the dangers of it (if texting is even a thing, or even manual driving, when my oldest gets her permit in 12 years). But education can only go so far, especially with teens who think they will live forever so it's ok to do it "just this one time." Education, harsher penalties, parental controls will reduce deaths without infringing our liberties.

Yes, make the taxpayer (including me) pay $50,000+ a year to keep someone in prison.... Yeah, that's a GREAT idea!

That seems to be society's answer to everything. Throw 'em in the slammer. We have more people in prison than Russia, China and North Korea and well EVERYONE. Yes, we are #1 for imprisoning people. "The Land of the Free". "The Land of the Imprisoned" would be more like it. We throw everyone in there. They smoked a doobie? Throw 'em in jail! They had underage sex? Throw them in Juvie. Basically, if our PURITAN LAWS are broken (i.e. you're not a right-wing extremist) we throw them in prison. Murder? Hell, they get out in 5 years here if it's in the inner city so they can go kill some more people. Evade your taxes? Hell, that's 10+ years. Contempt of court? (you're damn right I have contempt for our Supreme Court morons), that's indefinite. Did you know the grandsons of Francis Scott Key (writer of our national anthem) were jailed for speaking their mind during the civil war? That's right. Habeas Corpus was suspended along with Constitutional Rights. They could jail you for anything during the civil war and not bring you up for trial (kind of like Guantanamo). There was a certain hypocrisy about it, though given they claimed the South had committed high treason by separating from the Union (exactly what had George Washington done in regards to Great Britain???)



And I think you should be the first to go to jail if you so much as itch your nose while driving because what you're suggesting is unenforceable without being ridiculous. "What" constitutes a "distraction"; it spirals out of control if you suggest that we go beyond texting and other such smart phone activities. You can't pick up your can of soda and take a swig? Ridiculous. What's a distraction for one person is easily done by an another. If someone kills someone now due to distraction, there's already heavy fines and prison sentences. That doesn't deter anyone. In other words, you can't fix stupid. And you can't bring someone back from the dead AFTER the fact. In other words, a fine afterwards doesn't help. And it doesn't deter others because they never believe it will happen to them.

You'd have to have cameras in the car detecting illegal activity to deter things. Maybe a breath detector to start the engine too while we're at it? Those things might work, but is that the kind of country you want to live in? Do we really want to be more like North Korea?

 

[milo]

One is a touch screen that requires you to look away, the other is tactile switch you operate while you focus on the road. The diffeeence is obvious.

You don't think there are cars that do radio and temperature with touch screen? And phones that respond to voice commands? And even with tactile switches, there's a limit to what I can do with heater and radio on my car without taking a quick look at them.

 

[840quadra]

You don't think there are cars that do radio and temperature with touch screen? And phones that respond to voice commands? And even with tactile switches, there's a limit to what I can do with heater and radio on my car without taking a quick look at them.

The fact of cars having touch screen controls is not a defense for using them while in motion, especially if they require direct attention to operate them.

It's just a personal opinion but controls like that have no business being in a motor vehicle, and explains why so many drivers can't operate without the crutch of backup cameras, adaptive cruise, lane departure warnings, blind spot notifications, and other driving aids. The act of driving has taken a back seat to all the toys, which is quite sad.

 

[I7guy]

The fact of cars having touch screen controls is not a defense for using them while in motion, especially if they require direct attention to operate them.

It's just a personal opinion but controls like that have no business being in a motor vehicle, and explains why so many drivers can't operate without the crutch of backup cameras, adaptive cruise, lane departure warnings, blind spot notifications, and other driving aids. The act of driving has taken a back seat to all the toys, which is quite sad.

I'm an old school driver and love driving. I take a defensive driving course every few years, to keep my insurance rates rock bottom.

The only "nanny" I have come to appreciate is the backup camera, it still doesn't take over for my eyes, but the viewport provides a window to what I can't see below the trunk when I'm sitting in the car waiting to leave the garage. The other stuff mentioned, I can leave it off. Of course you didn't mention traction control, which I believe is a federal requirement these days. I can switch it off, but why tempt fate?