Government Wants to Restrict In-Vehicle Communications

She lived next door for a couple years, according to an acquaintance she was one the phone leaving a message on someone's recorder and it captured the squealing tires.

This is near where the big crash happen the week before that killed 11 people, seems she was avoiding some barricades when it happen.

http://bit.ly/xxTOR6

Distracted driving legislation in Alberta, and likely eslewhere, prohibits adjusting or programing a GPS whicle driving.

This is good to know, I'll be taking a trip to Alberta in May.

Wow! It's only a matter of time until that comes here. I do like the voice command on my 3490LMT for that reason alone.

-Thx.

Ontario has distracted driving laws as well.

Illinois exempts GPS from the texting restrictions.

In most places, if you are doing make-ups, reading papers, eating and/or many things similar, you will get a ticket for unsafe/reckless driving. Today, it is up to police officers' discretion to give out tickets. Of course, it does not mean you are guilty of anything, you just have to fight it out in the court.

After almost getting hit twice tonight alone, by someone busy on their cellphone, I'd like to see an end to all but handsfree communications.

I was reading something about this a few days ago. It seems like they want the auto manufacturers to include some type of electronic circuit to disable the drivers cell phone from being used while the vehicle is in motion.

My question would be.. "how is the drivers phone going to be disabled while the passengers isn't".. and "don't you think there will be something sold to disable the disabling phone circuit?"

Nuvi1300WTGPS

If this administration remains in power I'd bet heavily it will happen very soon!

the one I saw uses an app and a dongle hooked to the car's OBDII port to disable the phone while the car is moving. The alternative (gyro, gps, cellphone triangulation) would disable both phones as you mentioned.

the answer is simple - just stay off the road when I am on the road.
This issue has nothing to do with "administration".
What else would you not like done?
Seems like your team is doing a good job of nothing.

One of the methods being evaluated by some in white buildings located on or near Pennsylvania Avenue is interrupting the cellular signals when the car is in motion. If the vehicle is moving, the signal is blocked. Come to a stop and the signal is restored. Sounds great except for the laws against deliberately interfering with a lawful signal. In this case, the signal being interfered with is not the one from your cell phone as much as it is the one from the cellular carrier. It's pretty much a half-baked scheme that wasn't fully vetted before being thrown out as a way to stop - gasp! - distracted drivers.

The number of frequencies that would have to be blocked (assuming this is the method chosen) would cause untold harm in so many other areas. The blockers will affect the radios used by emergency responders as many operate in the same frequencies as cell phones.

I can just see myself in rush hour traffic with the cell signal blocked when the vehicle is moving; can anyone say nightmare on elm street

Maybe it will be speed related... as you creap along at 5 MPH the phone still works.

Not as serious as the cell phone problem, but what about people driving and talking on ham radios? Also what about the police talking on their radios while driving?

the police are pretty much exempt from everything. They can talk on cell phones and I have even seen them manipulating their computer while driving. I guess that means they are super human and can make no mistakes or get distracted.

There are already laws in every jurisdiction that cover "Distracted Driving". Just apply those and don't worry about making new criminals out of regular citizens.

And just how would you be able to tell if a driver is distracted? He/She will be cought speeding or running a red light and have the second charge added. Make it a non drop-able charge.
And if you get into a crash while on a phone/gps, that would be enough to trigger the 'distracted' clause.

And yes absolutely the police and every politician are vastly superior and can never be distracted. Laws are for the common folk.
It would be great to be able to take a photo (from a cell phone, of course) of cops breaking laws, and have the police subject to the same sanctions because of the evidence submitted by ordinary citizens.

Already in place for certain areas.

I was hit on a freeway, by a distracted driver. Traffic came to a complete stop and so did I, and I was hit by a guy doing between 45 and 50 mph. He had a 'low tech' distraction though. He told the officer that after he was done putting his lunch box down and grabbing his drink, he didn't realize that traffic had stopped.

Get licensed and become an Amateur Radio (HAM) operator. Up to now legislation has been pro-HAM with regards to vehicle/ham radio operations.

Certain FM mobile transceivers have GPS capability built in thus making its use an extension of a licensee's privileges. Disclaimer: the GPS features on HAM radios are nothing like those on the GPS units from Garmin, TomTom, et al.

There are ways of plotting your location using a laptop and/or PC and APRS (HAM) software which will allow others to follow you as you go. Communications worldwide is possible with these FM units as well using IRLP and VoIP programs (a HAM license is necessary though).

Google APRS and/or IRLP for more detailed info, or visit the ARRL webpage: www.arrl.org

The possibilities are endless!

ML

We have plenty of laws addressing distracted driving, and I'm generally supportive of them, but like speed limits they seem to be ignored and applicable only to other people. The hands free device law has been in effect for months, but I continue to see people driving with phone in one hand, holding that to their ear, and making hand gestures with the other hand (to the caller?) on the other end of the phone.

Taking humans out of the active act of driving on public roads might be the only way to improve the situation, and I'm guessing that is 15-30 years away from reality (and yes, even that might be optimistic). Aircraft and subway systems have been moving in this direction for years - getting ground based roadway transportation automated seems like the next logical step.

And before cell phones people didn't get distracted by pretty girls/women, radio, food, billboards, talking to people in the car, etc.?

We do not need more reasons to be stopped and have our lives intruded upon and controlled by the police and local governments who are trying to generate revenue.

Wouldn't it be easier to just pull off the road to make the call and/or send that text?

Also you're assuming membership/ready access to an autopatch.

(HAM is much more fun on CW - the morse code thingy)

To some extent, yes they did, but poking little buttons on a phone or GPS screen is a MUCH bigger distraction than the ones you cited.

While I agree with the general sentiment, one of the things that law enforcement is SUPPOSED to do is protect us from the malicious or reckless acts of others. It's sad if a person kills themselves by losing control of their vehicle while driving distracted, but it's especially tragic if they kill or maim SOMEBODY ELSE while doing so.

As a motorcyclist I feel very strongly about this.

http://bit.ly/wNnve2

How much you want to bet after they finish the investigation the running down of the pedestrian was justified.

Would that be something like..."Negligent Driving" ...?

Ron

"Poking little buttons are a MUCH bigger distraction"

- that is a judgment/opinion not based in fact to science. Turning a knob or pushing buttons on a radio in my judgment/opinion are just as distracting. Spilling hot coffee or tea can be a more significant distraction.

"protect us"

Really. Do you think that a speed limit that is enforced the same way whether you are on the road alone or not is for society's protection? How do variable speed limits protect you? While I am not into them, how are lights around the bottom of a car which actually makes it more visible, dangerous? Is it for you protection to get a ticket for not stopping long enough at a stop sign? What if it is corner with good visibility that allows you to see that there are not pedestrians or traffic near? There are more but it is worth my time to continue listing them.

You don't need to continue listing them because they are mostly beside the point. Speed limits, such as those imposed in residential areas for safety, are generally reasonable. Speed traps, with arbitrary reductions in the speed limit accompanied by heavy enforcement, are not. And I really don't care how many glow sticks some kid glues to the bottom of his Honda Civic.

I fully agree that our governments are increasingly likely to try and justify many questionable restrictions on our freedom, or take opportunities to "generate revenue", by portraying them as "safety issues". I get that.

My point is that some distractions, like squabbling kids in the back of a minivan, may be unavoidable. Other distractions, like a pretty woman or a '69 Camaro, are actually welcome.

However, hands-on texting while in control of a moving vehicle is both avoidable and dangerous to other drivers. In my opinion it is not unreasonable to try and prevent someone from doing it before they hurt ME.

You are correct - I am sure every jurisdiction has some form of existing distracted driving legislation.

But legislators are pushed to make these types of laws more and more specific, with the intent being that they PREVENT accidents. Things like following to close, weaving in and out of a lane, and even speding can be the RESULT of "distracted driving". But what are the CAUSES of distracted driving? Safety studies by academics, automobile associatins and insurance groups have identified talking on cell phones, personal grooming and setting a GPS while driving to be significant causes of distracted driving.

So now we have laws that prohibit those activities - even though the driver doing these things may not be following too close, weaving or speeding.

The problem with these laws from my point of view is the wide range of traffic situations. I regularly drive to see a customer 5-6 hours away. There is a good bit of this drive where cars are typically not around me and I am cruising on cruise control. To suggest I cannot safely change the music I am listening to (from my GPS) or take a phone call is kind of silly. I use hands free facilitated by my GPS.

On the other hand, I have been in serious traffic before and gotten a call I had to concentrate on. I pulled over. To do so was just common sense to me.

Texting takes too much time away from paying attention to the car. Typing in addresses to the gps is at best border line so I put my destinations in the favorites list before leaving. Not using a GPS while moving would be a whole lot more likely if it started up before I was a mile or two down the road.

Car manufacturers are already testing cars which drive for us. You can already buy a car that will apply the brakes for you if you get too close to a car in front of you. These systems may help but what we really need is for people to apply some common sense. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, however.

Jim

Some day, I would love to see a news headline about a new law that expands our everyday liberty and freedom.
Are those days gone forever?

I'd say "your team" has done enough damage! Here's to a
"new team" in November!!

"Wow! It's only a matter of time until that comes here. I do like the voice command on my 3490LMT for that reason alone."

I have read that some municipalities want to outlaw all cell phones, including voice command phones.

Those laws (typically court struck down ones) are characterized in headlines as being "dangerous, irresponsible, endangering children, etc."

I'm afraid those days are gone forever.

People talk about the "good old days" like they actually existed. In most cases, that is just one's perception through the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.

In the "good old days" you could expect to be harassed for having long hair, refused service because of the colour of your skin, or (in America) look forward to the possibility of being drafted when you got out of high school.

Now we can complain about our conveniences being infringed upon, our privileges being limited and some government conspiracy preventing the achievement of our dreams.

I don't mean to be critical of anyone's memories but the "good old days" are happening right now.

If that happens you probably won't be able to afford a cell phone or a GPS

I will agree to disagree on that one.

The same government that wants to reduce driver distractions now wants to mandate in-car backup cameras?

I know about the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but this is more like the right thumb and right index finger -- reduce driver distractions by mandating an in-dash display and a back-up camera?

Makes perfect sense!

I have a backup camera in my vehicle and the only time I use it is at night if I'm trying to back out of a badly lit driveway. Otherwise I find the rear bumper sensors much more useful.

I have always wanted a backup camera just as an extra option, but I'm always afraid that someone will try to rip it off. I've had bad experiences with vehicle break-ins.

Or call it risk-benefit analysis.

"According to the Department of Transportation, 300 children are killed every year when a car backs into them."

300 per YEAR?

How many people still die every year from smoking? (CDC says about 443,000 in the U.S. per year). Wikipedia says around 50 per year die in the U.S. from lightning strikes.

Don't get me wrong -- these are serious events.

But given the numbers, does putting this burden on the entire industry (and every car buyer) make sense?

And something tells me that the presence of these back-up cameras in all vehicles won't significantly reduce the incidence of these events --

Forget that! Let's go back to KING SPARK!

Isn't CW Country Western music.
Sorry the devil made me do it.

You'd have a hard time convincing the young mother down the street that just killed her 2 year old because she didn't see him get out of the house and run behind her vehicle.

Remember she was not vigilant in the first place.. My niece has a Ford that applies the brakes if an obstacle is behind. That makes more sense to me.

Although I agree that something needs to be done to hinder bad habits such as reading papers, applying makeup, texting (just to name a few) while driving, I am also puzzled that there always seems to be an exemption for a select few. If it is dangerous it should apply to all.

The only way to solve the issue is to remove the weakest link, which unfortunately happens to be the person at the wheel. Once cars can drive themselves we will continue to hear stories such as this.

This is my biggest concern when I road ride on my bicycle. More and more drivers not paying attention raise the chances of being struck.