
Police detectors to warn mobile phone-using drivers - mintone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47896472
======
stephen_g
This seems like a silly idea - as the article says, there's no way for it to
tell whether it's the driver or a passenger, but even if there's only one
person in the car, there's no way to tell if the person is actively using a
mobile phone or if it's just sitting in the car and there's some app running
on it that happens to be transmitting data...

Then add in the likelihood that it'll pick up all sorts of random interference
and have all sorts false-positives... It'd probably be just as accurate if it
just had a sensor to detect cars, and flash the warning at a randomly chosen
30% or so of cars...

~~~
ehnto
Considering the failure mode is fatal, it's not that unreasonable to expect
people to turn off their phones in their cars in my opinion.

If you are driving, you can't respond anyway, so just wait until you get to
your destination to reconnect.

Phone use is now killing more people than drunk driving so I don't feel like
it's an over-reaction. Drivers had their chance to be responsible and they
killed a bunch of people instead.

~~~
kurtisc
Phones have legitimate uses in cars. Satnav, music, or even just an indication
that you just pull over and answer a phone. Given that I've never used one
illegally, I think it's fair for me not to want to go through a power cycle
for every journey.

How could Uber work without one?

~~~
ehnto
The utility for devices in a car is obvious, no one is arguing that they
aren't useful. But that's just a shame, because using them kills people every
day and we haven't found a way to police it yet. Power cycling may just be a
caveat of the policing methods.

Driving is a privilege that is constantly abused. Perhaps we just couldn't
handle unfettered use of devices in cars the same way we couldn't handle
drinking and driving?

I am all for some kind of controlled way of safe phone use in cars, but it
doesn't exist. Better to remove the temptation until it does.

~~~
mgamache
That sentiment can be made about a lot of things including cars themselves:

"The utility for cars are obvious, using them kills people every day. We just
couldn't handle unfettered use of cars. I am all for some kind of controlled
way of safe use of cars, but it doesn't exist. Better to remove the temptation
until it does."

~~~
ehnto
Sure, but not about the downsides of removing them. It's a balance of pros and
cons. Having people stop using their phones at all in a car wouldn't be a huge
deal. It is only a recent problem after all. Not having the automobile would
be devastating to the economy and people's lifestyles.

The pros of phone use in a car are real, but shallow. The cons are that they
cause accidents. It's heavily weighted toward cons.

------
esotericn
For context, across the UK we have similar systems for speed limits.

They are not used for enforcement or prosecution. They are informational
boards. Actual speed cameras are different (usually a yellow or blue box that
doesn't give any feedback).

It's basically a sort of 'big brother is watching' reminder.

Some of them show your actual speed on a big LED board, leading to individuals
attempting to get a "high score".

It sounds from the article like this would be the same. A board that flashes a
mobile phone if you might be using one.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a complete waste of time (because I know these
boards are meaningless), but the other side of the coin is that a decent
number of people actually are afraid of enforcement action due to the signs
and slow down.

~~~
Freak_NL
It's not fear of enforcement that motivates people to act on these signs, it
is the moral reminder that their behaviour is not socially acceptable (not to
mention illegal). For a large group of people this works. Speeding (and being
a smombie behind the wheel) is something people often do unintentionally, or
with a rationalization mindset of 'everybody does it' (or something along
those lines). For both these cases a reminder without further consequences can
guide them to better behaviour.

For the rest who just make their own rules enforcement remains necessary of
course, but it helps if you can get a good number of people to cooperate
intrinsically.

~~~
esotericn
I suppose it depends a lot on your local area.

Where I live there are tons of these 'flashy speed limit' signs.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone obey them. 35-40mph in the new London '20
zones' is completely normal behaviour if the road permits; everyone does
indeed do it, including buses and off-duty police/ambulances.

It is, in fact, empirically socially acceptable (by the drivers if not
necessarily by people who live there).

In areas with speed bumps you see much lower speeds because people don't want
to damage their vehicles. Enforcement, basically. The same is true for real
speed cameras, people tend to speed up and slow down.

That said, mobile phone use is different. I think most people intuitively
recognise that using a phone at the wheel, particularly in an urban area, is
really quite dangerous, and maybe a sign would work.

~~~
nmstoker
Don't want to sound condescending about drivers but on my street I see plenty
of people who don't alter their behaviour with the speed bumps - either
because they are not observant or it's not their vehicle (the council rubbish
vans get thrown over them at high speed by their angry careless drivers!)

------
mintone
The article suggests that the detectors will detect 2G, 3G and 4G usage, but
will recognise if a bluetooth hands-free kit is in use. This sounds like
complete snake oil to me, please could someone explain if this is possible?

~~~
narrowtux
And what if you're using your phone for navigation? It will still transmit
data to google maps or whichever maps service you use, but its usage would
probably considered legal.

~~~
profmonocle
Heck, your phone could be on silent in your pocket and a push notification
might set this off. Your phone still has to transmit the acknowledgment.

------
Bombthecat
I'm in Houston right now, no car, so we walk around here (it is very rare
seeing someone not in a car here, no public transport, but that's another
topic) what really baffled me was the amount of people on there phone while
driving. Its insane. I read about that problem. But I thought it was
exaggerated. But hooollyy Molly. It is a lot. There was even an add on tv for
a collision detector along the line of:while distracted by your phone, it
warns you about an upcoming collision!

------
CableGorilla
I use my phone every day for Google Maps, surely that is going to be a false
positive?

------
mosselman
"The technology will not be used as an "enforcement tool", the forces said,
but was instead aimed at educating motorists..."

I hope there will be enforcement tools in the near future and I believe the
fines and other forms of punishment should be very high. First offence could
mean no driving for a month along with a huge fine that is based on salary,
second offence something along the lines of losing your license completely and
having to go through the complete process of examination, etc after a year of
reflection without driving, again with a hefty fine. Apparently you weren't
that interesting in driving to begin with, in the bus you can look at your
phone all you want. Third offence means you don't get a license for 20 years.
Killing/injuring someone while using your phone in the car should result into
some form of prison sentence.

In my eyes there is 0 excuse for being engaged with your phone in the car in
any other form than passively while using it for navigation. The worst are
people who are looking at messages and writing.

A few weeks ago I was almost hit by a driver who sped over the crossing I was
walking on. I was paying attention enough to see him with his phone in his
hand, looking at something on the screen, never looking up and I was just able
to stop walking. I don't know if I'd been killed if I weren't paying
attention, but it wouldn't have been pretty.

I don't even care that much about myself though, I already have little faith
in people's ability to drive properly so I pay attention and hope that keeps
saving me. What I worry about are my children, who are bound to make some
mistakes when crossing streets, etc, them being kids after all. The idea of
someone killing them because they had to make a lame joke in a group chat in
order to earn some emoji-based kudos is insane yet somehow not impossible.

------
black6
Using a phone wile driving is one of my pet peeves, but this doesn't seem like
an effective approach. If a problem person is already distracted (not a false-
positive), will they even pay attention to the flashing sign?

Just last night I had to knock on the hood of a woman using her phone while
driving in the parking lot after she nearly ran over my wife and daughter
walking to a restaurant. She was completely oblivious to the goings on around
her and got extremely offended when I made the "hang up" gesture and told her
to put down her phone while driving. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

------
nmstoker
It should just turn on when there's a car as that will be equally effective as
the system (with its flaws) and then they could save the £6,000

------
teilo
Anyone using Carplay or Android Auto is going to get flagged by this. This is
stupid.

