rocket scientist figures out how to stop texting while driving.
 

For a slightly less optimistic view of its prospects of deployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/bu...%22RI%3A8%22**

Both articles are good. But even before the need for the device.

1. Remove both the 'handsfree' function and legislation on cell phones/Blackberrys'.

2. Replace it with the moment the vehicle a started, a cell phone is automatically shut down. Sort of like the positives' of two magnets 'avoid' eachother, just like the two negative ends'.

Vast amounts of time. expertise, and money was invested developing faster growing grasses and horses that required less feed. There was even entire railroad lines built to haul horse manure from the cities to rural (and off shore) dumping areas. Chicago even re-dug a river.... changing the direction it flowed. All in the name of keeping "horse power" moving people about.

Then Ford introduced an affordable car. In 20 years cars, buses, trains, and even planes will be driven by computers.

Yes, but this technology is ready to go right now. Would cities have been better to live in if the manure had been left until horses went out of fashion? Should we wait for the next perfect thing or use the tools at hand to save lives right now?

People who lived in city's DID continue to suffer the manure... until it was no longer fashionable or practicable. And... very few ever thought converting to cars... was a perfect solution. Currently (correct me if I am wrong) no one is required to text while driving. People chose to break laws. That won't change.

Once lawmakers concern themselves with the intention to remove every danger and annoyance from our streets don't expect to be able to ride your horse on the streets. Even a new-fangled iron horse.... bicycle machine (bicycles may be less-loved than texting). .

While it MAY not change, it most certainly COULD change. It's simply a matter of enforcement and appropriate sanctions (even without putting the available technology in place). Just because our culture currently chooses to accept such high rates of road CARnage does not mean that it must continue to do so in all places for all time.

At some point, I expect a few small cities to independently change the way the game is played on their turf. It has certainly happened before, not that historical precedent is a requirement for change.

However, the ability to receive a text while driving can eliminate a lot of useless driving. For example, I had a date cancel on me just over an hour ahead, when she was an hour and a half from home. Had I not checked that text, I would have driven two hours (there and back) for nothing, being another car on the road, which we keep saying we want to reduce. Had the same thing happen a lot when I was doing service calls in Dallas; I would get a message, check it at the next red light, and head to a different location or back to the office. Probably saved me 30-40 miles a week in already heavy traffic.

I think that is where you're mistaken. We didn't collectively gather and cast ballots to VOTE on our cultural beliefs. The beliefs we accept as part of our identity-paradigm evolved over a period of generations. You may be an outlier or "visionary" in regards to your desire for cultural change. But wishing... doesn't change things... or peoples beliefs. And even violent upheaval doesn't effect the kind of overnight paradigm shifts like you think could happen. History is full of failed attempts.


cul·ture
ˈkəlCHər/
noun
noun: culture

• 1.
  the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
  "20th century popular culture"
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]the arts, the humanities, intellectual achievement; Moreliterature, music, painting, philosophy, the performing arts
  
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]

You get my point! Frugalness and efficiency are admired human efforts. Devices that promote that part of our cultural beliefs are quickly integrated into our behavior.

Whereas.... blind robotic adherence to what seems to be arbitrary rules or laws is repulsive to our cultural beliefs. Over regulation or overly stiff punishments in America (at least) seem autocratic, dictatorial, undemocratic, tyrannical, authoritarian, or high-handed.

Like everyone else that feels texting while driving isn't safe.... I just don't do it. Those that think what they do with their phone is none of your business.... do as they choose. And... maybe that means they take a slight risk. Risk taking is NOT a bad thing in our culture. This will not change with a new law.

Risk taking IS a bad thing when your risks involve the lives of others... there in lies the problem... if the risk was only your's, then it would be no big deal, but when the risk kills others, it is not your decision alone... Categorizing it as a "slight risk" again doesn't help... while you may only incur a broken leg and dented car, others may be dead... it wasn't a "slight risk" to them.

The full ramifications of the risk must be understood... and to a society that tends to shun responsibilities, this is often overlooked.

I, like you, tend to just let the messages pile up until such time as I can attend to them with NO risk.

If you can ever do anything with no risk, then you should be sharing your secret with the world.

However, they are only practical to useful people; hence the number of useless people who assume that everyone else is as useless as they are and can just slow down, turn off the phone, etc.

Ah.... now you're catching on too! Yes. Cars, planes, trains, texting, falling, bicycling.... they all lead to death. Everything, ALWAYS leads to death.

So you do understand that death happens to everyone! It can NOT be made illegal or unlawful. Death can NOT be regulated or legislated. For MOST of MOST cultures... death is NOT feared. Thanatophobia (fear of death) can not be coped with through legal actions... or safety rituals. I think like addictions... thanatophobia is generally regarded as a spiritual illness. You don't have to live in fear... there is help.

First off, not everybody that works for NASA is a "rocket scientist..."

Secondly, at least the device in the NYTimes site can easily be defeated by simply placing the phone on the passenger's seat...

I don't really think there is a good, easily marketable, cheap way to stop people from texting and driving. Sure, I could devise a solution that identified people by their phones (you'd have to register the phone with the device), then had some sort of sensor to determine who was actually driving. (Seat position maybe?) Or I could use the same system mentioned above, but none of these methods are foolproof. People don't want to give up their phone just to stop other people from texting and driving.

I think it goes deeper than a sub-culture of the non-working.

I have noticed here at the forums a small number of very actively posting members who seem to live in dread of accident, injury, and death. They often seem to want others to join them in an appeal to government to address their fears.

I feel sorry for them... but I don't think this is the proper venue to help them. I often post that bicycling isn't for everyone. Not everyone can set aside there overwhelming worries of injury..... and just experience the joy and exhilaration most cyclists know.

But our compassionate feelings for these people... or our posts [here] won't help them.

In the case of every transportation mode you mentioned, there is a responsibility of the operator issue that takes priority over the need to communicate regarding other less pressing business. Operating the vehicle/aircraft should be the primary focus of the operator.

Yes, we all die eventually... but do you want your death to be untimely because some "pilot" was sexting his girlfriend, while you were in his airplane? The pilot thought it was a "slight risk" but judged poorly... and your death was the result. Do you condone that? How about if the engineer on your Metrolink train decided read phone text just moments before a critical junction... Engineer sent text 22 seconds before fatal train crash - CNN.com

The difference between plane, trains and automobiles is how many die when the "pilot" chooses distraction vice the job at hand.

You want to text in your car... pull over.

We have to identify the stakeholders here. Hint: it's not drivers. The difference between DUI and DWT is that even in the good old days, only a small percentage of drivers drove drunk. With phones, everyone is doing it- so there's no minority for the majority to target. That's why I think stiff laws that are enforced won't be coming soon.

The real stakeholders that will push a tech solution to phone use while driving will be the insurance companies: " hey, my actuaries say that using a phone while driving causes accidents- I'll just gas the rates of everyone who doesn't get a blocker installed on their phone/car." Instant demand.

It's a win.

I don't think much of his solution, identifying drivers by their departure point and route that is. Way too weak, everyone in my family would probably be fingered simultaneously by his algorithm.

I think there could be a way to transmit an EMF signal from the steering wheel and/or drivers seat through the driver's body in such a way as to be detectable by the phone's sensors. NFC, magnetic, something along those lines. Or even with the body blocking a bluetooth signal, that could inform the phone that the person holding it is in the driver's seat. Or even NFC with just the right strength to be detectable only within an arm's length of the steering column, disabling texting. An app on the phone would refuse to enter texts from the driver, or could be configured to refuse other apps for that matter.

It would take some experimenting, but it would be much more effective than this map-based idea.

You really think a driver texting while leaned over into the passenger seat to get out of range of the device is going to be safer than one just texting normally?

If anything, the laws have already gotten people to keep the phone down in their lap out of the cop's view instead of holding it up against the top of the steering wheel where the road is at least in peripheral vision. The only slight improvement is that now you can try to avoid the people who appear to be fascinated by their own crotch.

When auto insurance companies provide the service for free and give parents a big break on insuring their teenage children, I can see this taking off. Otherwise, it's hard for me to see a lot of people paying to have their freedom limited, even if it is for their own good.

The person who texts while driving will also unplug this stupid thing.

When it takes off, I can see undetectable bypass methods being published online within a week.

Risks can be quantified, measured, and evaluated; Chances cannot. That's why we employ the language "to weigh the risks", as opposed to "to take a chance".

As a driver, I used to run most yellow lights; as a cyclist, almost never. Why? Because I can neither accelerate as fast as a car, nor brake as quickly/effectively. Over time, and with experience, we almost instinctively know what to do in many/most risky situations, while others require conscious thought; but if we really have to think about it, then it's probably chancy, and better avoided.

I think with a little work, that the driver wouldn't be able to text at all, leaning over or otherwise.