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

[MacBH928]

If they tell car manufacturers to install a wireless technology that can control your phone/devices with a simplified touch screen panel this can be a solution.

No one wants to attach, de-attach, re-attach devices every time they get in or get out of the car not to mention all the different connectors. Something like Airplay or chromecast maybe?

 

[ThunderSkunk]

once we start telling people where they can use their phones, what is next? Can't use them at the theater, not at political rallies (at least not Trump rallies), not in the presence of the police, not unless you are a certain age. Where does it stop?

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.

 

[nt5672]

Are you saying your right to a convenience of using your phone should trump that of life?

Sorry, the very purpose of governance is to balance public safety to that of individual privilege.

In the case of phones, using one while driving has proven to have dramatic, and measurable safety risk, and one that has caused the deaths of thousands already.

Sorry, your privilege of using a gadget doesn't out weigh the right to public safety on publicly operated throughfares.

Thinking otherwise is pure selfish and arrogant,

So I really hope I misinterpreted what you were saying

You did misinterpret what I said. I said my losing freedoms as a passenger in a weak and ineffective attempt at stopping accidents was not worth the tradeoff. It has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with people mistakenly thinking that a law or rule by the government solves the problem thereby allowing themselves to sleep better at night. Its just wrong, unless they can really target only the driver. I don't use a phone while driving, and get really mad at those that do, but thats choices they make. Some may not mind losing their freedoms, but I do and its gotten to the point where it is no longer worth it.

And what you really don't understand is that these efforts are not about protecting the people or more commonly heard these days, protecting the children and are completely about giving the government power to control our lives. This is power which can never be taken back from the government without bloodshed. Read some history.

 

[I7guy]

Are you saying your right to a convenience of using your phone should trump that of life?

Sorry, the very purpose of governance is to balance public safety to that of individual privilege.

In the case of phones, using one while driving has proven to have dramatic, and measurable safety risk, and one that has caused the deaths of thousands already.

Sorry, your privilege of using a gadget doesn't out weigh the right to public safety on publicly operated throughfares.

Thinking otherwise is pure selfish and arrogant,

So I really hope I misinterpreted what you were saying

Yes, keep the nannies and govt out of my life. It's not as simple as you make it out to be, that convenience should trump life.

 

[nt5672]

Not sure how this would work, does it rely on the GPS and detecting when you go over a set speed? What if you're not the driver or on a bus or train, how will it detect you're the driver?
[doublepost=1479982733][/doublepost]

As if the jails are not already over crowded with people behind bars who shouldn't be leading to them returning time and time again.

Jails work for good people, they don't necessarily work for bad people, because bad people in a lot of cases really have nothing to lose by going to jail. In fact, we have made jails so comfortable that in most cases jails are better than the living conditions these criminals would live it outside of jail. Jail is to criminals just government assistance where they can get a degree, workout without a gym membership, watch free TV, get free food, get free healthcare, etc.. Now if we had work gangs, variable living conditions (no gym, no internet, no schools, etc), and criminals were humanely forced to do things that benefited society (like clean homeless shelter toilets, fix/clean broken sewers, pick up road trash, fix roads, etc.) while they were incarcerated then I'll bet there would be a lot less people ignoring the laws.

But no, lets give criminals a free ride and expect them not to like it. People need to get real. Of course jail is no longer a deterrent for the hard core. And you ask why? Because if jail was made to actually work, then we would not need all of these new laws that the government types have convinced the politically correct will solve our problems. You really think the greatest country in the world, that won the last world war, cannot find a way to reduce crime if the government really wanted to reduce crime. Come on, has the indoctrination gotten so complete as to override common sense and logic.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet, 1887.

 

[syclone]

Manual transmission. . .problem solved.

Not really. I daily drive a manual transmission and I still manage to mess around with my phone from time to time while the vehicle is moving. It's only to type a name into contacts when Siri inevitably can't figure out something simple like "Call Wendy at Work" ("I'm sorry there is nobody named Wendy Work in your contacts."), but if I can do that much, then manual transmission drivers can certainly type out text messages while shifting. I love driving a manual and find it to be a better connection with the vehicle. But when you've exclusively been driving manuals for 16 years, shifting is second nature. I can drive with just my right hand switching between the wheel and gear lever just fine, excluding corners requiring more than a few degrees of steering input. For me it's usually just to hang my left arm out the window on nice days, but plenty of opportunity there to get distracted by a phone.

 

[Roller]

This would suck. We already have a car where I, as the passenger, cannot use the navigation system because the car is moving. There is no way the government is going to get this right. But this is really easy to fix this. Make the law 2 months mandatory jail time for anyone using a phone while driving. 90 % of the offenders would stop day 2.

Why should I, as a passenger, be punished for other people's stupidity? How would this work on trains, busses, or the back seat? I would only accept limitations in this area if they absolutely only applied to the driver and not any passengers. But I don't see how that can happen. And once we start telling people where they can use their phones, what is next? Can't use them at the theater, not at political rallies (at least not Trump rallies), not in the presence of the police, not unless you are a certain age. Where does it stop?

Interesting question. The challenge is finding the sweet spot between completely unfettered conduct behind the wheel and overly-restrictive regulations that prevent drivers and passengers from reasonable activities. This isn't easy, in part because humans tend to overestimate their capabilities. But some level of societal constraint (speed limits, mandatory seatbelt and car seat use, laws against impaired driving, for example) demonstrably saves lives, lessens injuries, and helps lower healthcare costs.

It's also important to consider whether passive or active controls are more effective. Laws, as in your example of jail time for phone use while driving, are passive—they assume that people will comply to avoid punishment. But that doesn't always work, as, for instance, when judgement is impaired by alcohol or drug use. That's where active controls come in. In a sense, self-driving vehicles are the ultimate controls because they remove human drivers from the loop.

 

[kdarling]

You did misinterpret what I said. I said my losing freedoms as a passenger in a weak and ineffective attempt at stopping accidents was not worth the tradeoff. It has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with people mistakenly thinking that a law or rule by the government solves the problem thereby allowing themselves to sleep better at night.

People said the exact same thing when seat belt usage was mandated. And putting flourine in water before that. And nowadays, the anti-vaccine nuts who have caused old diseases to come back.

They still say it about motorcycle helmets, but I think there's a difference in that case, because it's usually just the driver who suffers.

With phone usage while driving, just as with DWI, other people and families often suffer horribly.

 

[I7guy]

People said the exact same thing when seat belt usage was mandated. And putting flourine in water before that. And nowadays, the anti-vaccine nuts who have caused old diseases to come back.

They still say it about motorcycle helmets, but I think there's a difference in that case, because it's usually just the driver who suffers.

With phone usage while driving, just as with DWI, other people and families often suffer horribly.

Same with seat belts, usually the driver who suffers. I have less of an issue if somehow limiting the device can be done only while the driver is operating the device, if I hand the device to my wife she should have full functionality.

 

[DoctorTech]

Neither of which is focusing on driving, which is the exact definition of distracted driving in many states.

Would those states also consider drinking a cup of coffee, talking to a passenger, or adjusting the temperature of the air conditioner (not everyone has steering wheel controls) as distracted driving? If someone really wanted to get picky then reading a billboard, looking for a street sign or admiring outdoor Christmas lights could also be distractions because they take the driver's eyes off the road in front of them.

I think the point of the original post was about the degree of distraction. Reading or sending a text message would likely take the driver's mind and eyes off the road longer than glancing at a map or selecting a song. I have driven over 110K miles in the past 4 years and I have seen more than my share of distracted drivers. I am all for improved safety but it needs to be well thought out. The biggest problem I see with the idea suggested in this article is that the people who need it most are probably the least likely to voluntarily use it. If at some point in the future it is made mandatory, it would be very difficult to discriminate between drivers and passengers.

 

[Stella]

Taxi drivers are one of the most dangerous group of drivers on the road!!

That's called public transportation or a taxi.

 

[macsrcool1234]

I'd welcome this feature. Google is already ahead on this.

Terrible idea.

What about the passengers in the car? Or bus?

Instead resources would be better spend into improving technology to the point where you don't need to look at the screen.

 

[Stella]

It's not only teenagers that use phone while driving...

Have you actually never met a teenager?
[doublepost=1479954776][/doublepost]

You should the entire article before commenting. Particularly the paragraph that begins: "The NHTSA said technologies..."

 

[CouponPages]

I realize some people think it's unnecessary because people need to take responsibility, but the fact is, even when people decide not to SEND a text, it's tempting to reach for your phone when one comes in, even if it's just to read it.

I think a Driving Mode would be even better if parents had a way for it to turn on automatically whenever the iPhone detects that it's in the car. Whether that's by it detecting the Bluetooth, or detecting the speed.

I created a couple of blog posts a while back including this one from 2015, http://www.ideaoftheday.com/Blog/article.aspx?p=389


And I created a video version with this one http://www.ideaoftheday.com/blog/article.aspx?p=682

 

[monokakata]

Yeah even when people aren't watching movies, humans are notoriously bad at monitoring things. The aviation industry has found this out over decades with autopilots. Something goes wrong, the pilots don't notice or they are completely out of the loop and the plane craters. Air France 447 is a perfect example. Eastern Air Lines 401, Aeroflot 593, Turkish 1951, and the list goes on.

Of course, this fact is conveniently ignored by Silicon Valley visionaries...

Normally I wouldn't comment on something like kinqerror's mention of AF447, but I am, because AF447 is a cautionary tale for much more than lack of attention or "out of the loop."

If anybody's interested, the Wikipedia link is a good one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

Basically, there was a sensor malfunction, a failure by the pilots to understand what was happening, and then -- the relevant part, I think -- a fatal interaction between the one pilot who did not know what to do when flying manually in that situation, and the Airbus design, which (on all their planes) decouples the left and right flight controls. So the one pilot was trying to climb (precisely the wrong action) and the other pilot did not realize that. The cockpit voice recorder evidence is persuasive, and very sad.

With AF447 we're really talking about a design decision (the way the flight controls operate) that cannot be said to be "bad" or "reckless" or "foolish," (because thousands and thousands of Airbus planes are safely flown by pilots who certainly understand the decoupling) but that nevertheless in this example was a a big part of why a poorly-trained panicked pilot crashed a plane and killed many people.

Finally, about to go out running on a twisting two-lane road with blind curves. For 3 miles out of 8.5, I'll be ascending about a thousand feet, facing traffic. I'm on that road two or three times a week. There's no day on which I don't see a driver on a phone (some talking and some doing what looks like texting) and it's not rare for one of those drivers to be cutting a corner, putting me seriously at risk. The thing is -- I know the danger spots (blind curves/bad shoulder) and am always on high alert, and I've been running on the roads for more than 40 years and have learned to be very careful. Hilo has a hefty phone-use fine (I think it's $200) but it doesn't dissuade everybody.

 

[twocents]

What happens when your phone dies? You would not have ID for driving. Sure they could look you up but they can with normal DL also.

The probability though of both you getting pulled over, assuming you're not normally a reckless driver, and having a dead phone seems very low. That, and with most people having a phone charger in their cars would make it even less likely. Plus if you have an Apple Watch you could in theory have it added to it like the Medical ID today
[doublepost=1480009304][/doublepost]

I'm torn on this, I like the idea of moving to electronic equivalents of all the things I carry on a daily basis (cash, keys, cards, etc...) but I don't want to hand my phone to any representative of the government when (presumably) legality of something I'm doing is being questioned. There's already enough pressure to give government access to our data, I don't want identifying me to be another arrow in the quiver. (yes, I realize this could be done while still locked, I still have slippery slope concerns)

That's definitely valid, but as you said you could enable it to be accessed while the device is locked. All you would have to do in theory is show your iID(?) and have the officer scan it to verify it's legit then there shouldn't be any problems. But with the stories in the news lately, this may be an option you do at your own risk...

 

[840quadra]

Would those states also consider drinking a cup of coffee, talking to a passenger, or adjusting the temperature of the air conditioner (not everyone has steering wheel controls) as distracted driving? If someone really wanted to get picky then reading a billboard, looking for a street sign or admiring outdoor Christmas lights could also be distractions because they take the driver's eyes off the road in front of them.

I think the point of the original post was about the degree of distraction. Reading or sending a text message would likely take the driver's mind and eyes off the road longer than glancing at a map or selecting a song. I have driven over 110K miles in the past 4 years and I have seen more than my share of distracted drivers. I am all for improved safety but it needs to be well thought out. The biggest problem I see with the idea suggested in this article is that the people who need it most are probably the least likely to voluntarily use it. If at some point in the future it is made mandatory, it would be very difficult to discriminate between drivers and passengers.

I address some of your concerns in this post. There are certainly various layers of distractions within a car already. Also, with a familiar interior design, a car doesn't need steering wheel controls for a driver to be able to operate climate control, or audio equipment as long as the operator is well versed in their operation. At the end of the day, I am sure this is why we have court systems within the US (and other parts of the world) to resolve such borderline cases.

I agree that the software & laws need to be well thought out, and, I personally feel that this proposed software will not solve much, as it will either be ignored, disabled, or never really take off.

 

[twocents]

Maybe you'd still need some pants as well?

That may be asking a bit much /s

 

[Roller]

Same with seat belts, usually the driver who suffers. I have less of an issue if somehow limiting the device can be done only while the driver is operating the device, if I hand the device to my wife she should have full functionality.

It depends what you mean by "suffers." Unbelted occupants experience more serious injuries and die more frequently than belted ones. Aside from higher healthcare costs, there are also significant adverse effects on families and friends to be considered.

 

[iReality85]

Cars just need to be smarter, period. And I'm not talking about self driving cars (I'm not big on the idea of self driving). But there's plenty of technology already available that could prevent distracted driving.

Plenty of cars come with forward-facing cameras for lane detection. The car watches the road, and if you swerve across the line, it either corrects or alerts you. If that can be done, then the same can be done in reverse: cabin-facing cameras which track driver eye movement. If you're repeatedly and prolongedly taking your eyes off the road (like txting on your phone) then your car should annoyingly ding-ding-ding at you.

Seats are already pressure sensitive. This is how the car knows there is someone (or something) of x-amount of weight in the driver/passenger seat and doesn't have a seatbelt on. It would only be a short step from there to make the car aware of devices being used. Of course this would require software, like CarPlay, to ask (via the iPhone) if person A (driver) or person B (passenger) is the driver. Person A responds 'Yes.' Person A's phone is then 'locked' but is then controlled by the car's CarPlay console. Person B is then free to use their phone as is. Note that A and B wouldn't be able to both lie and say 'No' because the car knows one person is sitting in the driver's seat.

TL;DR, there's lots of readily available technology to get rid of distracted driving. It just needs to be implemented and expanded upon in a coherent way.

 

[kwikdeth]

Maybe it's just that most people don't have any reason or desire to do that. Because last time I checked, people who want to do these things, don't check the pesky law books before doing it...they just go and do it

Maybe it's just where I live or the people here or something but if murder was "legal" I think there would be a whole lot more of it going on. Certainly a lot more shootings. But hey, that's Arizona for ya. Remember that story about the people booing the gold star family on a plane about a week ago? That's the kind of people you're dealing with out here

 

[kingtj]

IMO, no.... The point here is the part you seem to be missing. Government legislation is generally quite poor at changing a behavior that people have a lot of incentive to partake in. (How'd that whole liquor prohibition thing work out, for example? And you NEVER hear about people overdosing on heroin since it's illegal with pretty harsh punishments, right?)

The far SUPERIOR way to solve the problem is to figure out ways to allow people to get the most reasonable benefits from the behavior in a safer way. I guarantee a GPS navigation system allows me to drive more safely to places I'm trying to find than the old method of taking out a big road map, unfolding it all over the car, and then trying to memorize the next 4 or 5 streets I need to remember to turn right or left on as I run across them. By the same token, we can find better ways to make texting a safer thing in a car. I like the concept that when you're in the vehicle moving, the phone would be smart enough to auto-reply to anyone who texts you, letting them know you're currently driving. That solves half of the stress people otherwise encounter, if the person texting them really needs a time sensitive response. I also like the idea that your car would allow you to give voice commands to auto reply with certain standard text responses, like an ETA if someone's asking how soon you expect to get to them to pick them up.

Already, the demands we've made on police in some cities to take a "no tolerance" approach to using a cellphone while driving has led to senseless problems. People are getting fined for picking up a phone for a couple seconds while sitting at a stop-light, even if all they're doing is checking the time displayed on it. That's not productive.

Are you saying your right to a convenience of using your phone should trump that of life?

Sorry, the very purpose of governance is to balance public safety to that of individual privilege.

In the case of phones, using one while driving has proven to have dramatic, and measurable safety risk, and one that has caused the deaths of thousands already.

Sorry, your privilege of using a gadget doesn't out weigh the right to public safety on publicly operated throughfares.

Thinking otherwise is pure selfish and arrogant,

So I really hope I misinterpreted what you were saying

 

[rGiskard]

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]

Government legislation is generally quite poor at changing a behavior that people have a lot of incentive to partake in. (How'd that whole liquor prohibition thing work out, for example? And you NEVER hear about people overdosing on heroin since it's illegal with pretty harsh punishments, right?)

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.

 

[I7guy]

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?

It's a scary experience to go through, but stupid can't be legislated or regulated.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

If Apple forces my phone into some limited mode while being paired with a car, after 25+ years of buying Apple products, I will never purchase a Apple product in the future.

There are very few true deal breakers however this is near the top of the list.