
Phone Makers Could Cut Off Drivers. So Why Don’t They? - msabalau
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/technology/phone-makers-could-cut-off-drivers-so-why-dont-they.html?_r=0
======
ClassyJacket
It would be a massive breakthrough in machine learning to create software that
figures out if the phone is being held by a driver or passenger, and
unsurprisingly this article claims they "could" do it without presenting a
method. What a load of rubbish.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Exactly. A related issue: the console in most cars disables many functions
while in motion, such as the ability to dial a phone number or change
settings. That prevents the _passenger_ from doing so as well.

~~~
dogma1138
What consoles do that? I never experienced that, even basic cars like a rental
Ford Focus give you full control from the steering wheel including making a
call.

~~~
stickfigure
My roommate's late-model Subaru Crosstrek. We seriously have to pull off to
the side of the road so that I (the passenger) can change the BT pairing so
that my phone plays music instead of his. The experience is so incredibly
aggravating that it has put me off Subarus completely.

~~~
x0x0
My Hyundai won't let you pair a phone while moving, but it will let you switch
which previously paired phone it is connected to while moving. It's critical
for couples that share cars.

------
ars
What an absolute waste of an article. It just repeats itself over and over and
over quoting different people each time.

"They should fix it, blah blah blah. Make them do it, blah blah blah."

If you don't answer the question of HOW then you just completely wasted your
readers time.

There is the tiniest mention in passing about something using sound waves to
guess the location of the person holding the phone. It doesn't work well.

And that's it. What a useless article.

~~~
kylerpalmer
Gave up less than 3 paragraphs in...

------
msabalau
"But if the behavior has addictive qualities, can drivers really be expected
to police themselves?" the article asks, nearly at it's end. Not answering it,
of course, because if drivers actually are responsible for their actions, the
rest of the story in meaningless.

~~~
db48x
Yea, that's just one step down the path to a world where meaningless and
unscientific personality tests (which is all of them) are used to dictate who
is allowed to do what, all in the name of safety. I would much rather have the
liberty rather than the illusion of safety.

Another way to look at it is that, to quote Heinlein, ignorance is it's own
death penalty. In principle the people dumb enough to drive while texting will
kill themselves faster than people who aren't so dumb. On the other hand the
risk of collateral damage is pretty high, so it could be ineffective. Having
the police issue citations for it is not very effective, but probably worth
it. Not an easy problem to solve, and one that's only going to get worse.

I think that the only technical solution that might fix it would be truly
self-driving cars, and you have to expect that to be pretty far off. Even if
they were available right now it would take at least a decade to get good
enough market penetration to really reduce the risk.

------
teilo
Are what technology, pray tell, will prevent the driver from user their phone
while driving, while at the same time allowing their passengers to use their
own phones?

Also: a great way to put Uber and Lyft out of business.

~~~
x0x0
Exactly. Even ignoring things like gps / maps, music, and audiobooks /
podcasts, car passengers will not tolerate their phone being disabled. Or
passengers on public transit.

------
dasil003
What kind of infantilized nanny-state fingerpointing scapegoat culture are we
living in here? It is beyond ridiculous to say phone makers should be
responsible for fixing this problem. Not just because of the impossibility,
but because of the slippery slope of impossibility for all the other things
that all the hand-wringing in the world won't put under the control of major
corporations' safety initiatives.

How about this: texting while driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving
yes? How about giving it commensurate penalties and drivers license
revocation?

~~~
mozumder
Or we could have the phone makers fix it directly.

There. Problem solved.

And we didn't even need to get thousands of local government agencies involved
in enforcement! We just fixed the problem at the source: the cell phone
manufacturers.

Would you rather fix a million separate problems - the millions of texting
drivers - or one problem at the cell phone manufacturer?

How much would your solution cost vs my solution?

Systematic solutions that remove human judgement from the solution will always
be better than any solution that's dependent on human judgement to work.

The nanny state exists because people are dangerous idiots. And they need to
be nannied.

~~~
ars
You didn't solve anything. You did the equivalent of yelling and crying and
saying "you fix it".

Unless you also have a suggestion of _how_ to do it?

~~~
mozumder
The solution is to force phone manufacturers to disable phones in moving cars.

~~~
__david__
So passengers phones are disabled, too?? No thanks.

~~~
dredmorbius
How many dead souls per passenger phone call are you willing to trade off?

~~~
dasil003
You say that in a shocked tone as if we don't already accept a huge number of
motor vehicle deaths for the convenience of driving.

~~~
dredmorbius
That doesn't exactly answer the question now, does it?

 _Tu quoque_ fallacy.

It also presumes my lack of awareness of the additional problems.

As I'd commented and cited in this thread: mobile-device distracted driving is
a factor in 25% of motor vehicle accidents.

------
brohoolio
Today while I was driving I was waiting to make a right turn. I waited for a
car to pass and then pulled out and followed the car. While the car was
passing me I could see the driver texting. It was a teenager / early 20s. I
followed him for 3 miles on my way to my destination. The speed limit is 50
mph. There are trees on either side of the road and the road is pretty narrow.
There are hills and curves so visibility is pretty limited.

The teenager was all over the road. At one point he crossed into oncoming
traffic while he was going up a hill with limited visibility. It's a marvel he
wasn't killed. I vowed never to bike along the road in this community. This
kid could have easily killed someone.

I was in a rural community. Lyft /uber aren't a solution. I'm not sure if the
phone companies can solve this but man it's super dangerous out there if you
aren't in a car.

~~~
mturmon
In my neighborhood, we have had a lot of cars driving into fixed objects like
trees and buildings, during clear weather. It feels like texting while
driving.

------
heavymark
Um because many people use phones in cars who are "not" driving. How are
companies suppose to determine when a phone is being used by a driver vs the
passenger right next to them or the people in the back seats? For someone not
driving there are countless good uses such as taking photos/video of sights,
games, directions and more such as calling someone for an address, or for
reporting your own or someone elses emergency.

Trying to ban it will never work since people will always find a way around it
or even worse alternatives, and any company that does, another company will
exist or popup offering the ability.

Just like with the industry trying to stop illegal music downloads it was
futile to stop them until instead the provided a better alternative (cheap
streaming, easily accessible high quality music). In the case of cars, Apple
and Google are hoping to entice users into using safer more convenient options
that holding a phone in their hand, with CarPlay and Android. The downside
being it will take a long time before the average person has a car with that
available.

------
raldi
Same reason car radios don't lock out their controls when the car is in
motion, and why the driver's side visor flap doesn't lock up the mirror.

~~~
dingo_bat
Cars do lock out everything on the console except maybe the volume control.

~~~
jonknee
Some cars. All my Audi locks out is pairing a new phone. Most rental cars I've
had are similar.

------
kylerpalmer
Be an adult and don't use your phone while you're driving. Tired of this
argument.

~~~
nyxtom
It's true. Better yet, disable cellular access for most apps when you don't
have Wi-Fi - to your pleasant surprise you might actually start noticing the
world around you, driving or not.

------
dredmorbius
Matt Richtel, the author of this piece, is not unfamiliar with the subject of
distracted driving. Indeed, he's written the book on the subject: _A Deadly
Wandering: A tale of tragedy and redemption in the age of attention_

[http://www.worldcat.org/title/deadly-wandering-a-tale-of-
tra...](http://www.worldcat.org/title/deadly-wandering-a-tale-of-tragedy-and-
redemption-in-the-age-of-attention/oclc/889949815&referer=space_alien_cat)

------
fdsaaf
It's very simple: I will not purchase a phone with this feature. Period. I
don't need technology nannying me.

------
dredmorbius
Hold phone manufacturer, vendor, and carrier executives, engineers, and sales
and marketing staff responsible for manslaughter charges for each death linked
to phone use whilst driving.

I suspect a solution to the problem will be found rapidly.

This is a problem. It's a _current_ problem. People die, at the rate of 350
per year: [http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-
ce...](http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-cell-phone-
crash-data.aspx)

Cellphone use causes over 1 in 4 car accidents:
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/28/cellphon...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/28/cellphone-
use-1-in-4-car-crashes/7018505/)

An earlier study put cell phone distraction at 2,600 deaths, _and another
330,000 injuries_ , in 2005: [http://www.livescience.com/121-drivers-cell-
phones-kill-thou...](http://www.livescience.com/121-drivers-cell-phones-kill-
thousands-snarl-traffic.html)

Those are lives snuffed out or altered forever, plus the families, friends,
neighbors, and co-workers affected. Hundreds of thousands directly, millions
indirectly.

For the convenience of a text, phone call, or music?

If the issue is one of driver (or passenger) convenience, versus _the lives_
of innocent drivers, cyclists, motorcyclists, or pedestrians unfortunate
enough to share the road with those who are unable to resist the lure of
devices _designed to be as addictive as possible_ , then I'm going to side
with safety, and against convenience. We've tried common sense. It's not
working, people.

The largely irrational invective expressed within this thread against the
suggestion itself strikes me as a very strong argument for technolgical blocks
an very strong product liability, such as that which I lead off this comment
with.

The argument that self-driving cars is an easier problem to solve than "is my
cellphone being used in a car", or even "is my cellphone being used by a
driver in a car", strikes me as ... less than convincing. I may be wrong.

The point that an immediate retroactive software or OS change can fix the
problem, but self-driving cars will take a a minimum years, if not a decade or
more, to emerge (if ever) seems to have escaped many as well.

Neither is is the job of an op-ed writer in a nontechnical newspaper to supply
the technical solution. We don't require those calling for a public policy or
international relations measure to specify turnkey solutions. Only to make a
compelling case that the change ought be implemented.

Apple, Google, Microsoft, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, LG, Samsung, and many
others have been murderously irresponsible.

Including, I'm quite sad to say, far too many HN commenters here.

