
Trying to Hit the Brake on Texting While Driving - srikar
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/business/trying-to-hit-the-brake-on-texting-while-driving.html
======
Spooky23
This is the knee-jerk reaction de jure of our age.

New York has made it a very serious moving violation (5 points, equivalent to
speeding 40 mph over the limit) to have any electronic device in your hand.
It's ok to use devices affixed to the dashboard, including GPS devices. If
your a teenaged driver, you automatically get a 60 day suspension.

Using technical controls to govern behavior is bad policy. There's a reason
why jamming radio signals is a serious crime -- it's too easy to make
unanticipated mistakes.

------
was_hellbanned
In my opinion, the problem is that drivers, by and large, are absolutely
_terrible_ at driving. They're so bad at driving that they have no idea _how
bad_ they are at it.

We're a nation of self-promoting, self-obsessed, angry narcissists,
incompetently sitting behind the wheel of multi-ton, wheeled death machines.
We have a single license tier for a ridiculous variety of vehicle shapes and
sizes. We have zero ongoing driver education requirements, and only require
retesting if sufficient complaints are received (when's the last time that's
even happened?) or we reach sufficient age.

Demand better driver training. Stop engaging in inane behavior when you have
greater responsibilities. Demand that others in your life do so as well.

------
eli
I honestly wonder whether mobile technology has contributed to this problem or
whether it has just finally allowed us to measure "distracted driving"
accidents accurately.

~~~
malkia
Everyday for my very short route of 1.5 miles from work to home I see texting
drivers. I don't like texting much myself, so I don't feel the urge to use the
device for it, and I have now idea what would make these people stop?

~~~
Spooky23
The other day, I saw an associate who has money problems and kids at home
buying shampoo for $10 at CVS... The same shampoo is $5 at Wal-Mart.

How do we stop parents from starving resources from their kids by buying
overpriced stuff?

~~~
jdhendrickson
This is a perfect example of how badly comment quality has degraded on hacker
news.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I read it as some deserved ridicule of malkia's comment.

~~~
tzs
What exactly about malkia's comment deserved ridicule?

~~~
malkia
That I drive for 1.5 miles only, but I have my own reasons :) which I won't
put here... since they are ridiculous (lol).

------
iopq
Give me an insurance rate reduction and I'll bite.

------
thinkling
The article mentions that even people who agree that texting is a bad idea
find that they have trouble stopping themselves from doing it.

These folks could limit distraction from incoming texts and calls by turning
on "Do Not Disturb" mode.

I'd actually appreciate a mobile OS feature which lets through incoming text
messages and auto-replies saying "I'm driving right now, I'll get back to you
when I safely can."

Is this problem largely going to go away as voice control of phones (and car
integration) get better?

~~~
psychometry
Does texting need auto-reply? There's no cultural assumption of an instant
reply over that medium.

~~~
Swizec
Texting has largely replaced phonecalls. Therefore most people expect you to
get back to them within a couple of minutes, not hours.

I have used, and have seen others use, texting in real-time applications where
immediate response is required. Like texting someone that you're at the door
(and the bell doesn't work) instead of calling them.

Generally the younger you go, the more texting is expected to be instant
communication.

~~~
joesmo
While I don't disagree, I think such people are wrong. Even if you're at my
door and the doorbell is broken, if you don't call, I might miss your text. I
won't apologize because you didn't call. To me texting is asynchronous and if
you want real-time, synchronous responses, you should call. The expectation of
any kind of timely response is ridiculous, IMO, and is completely
inappropriate. I could be doing any number of things that require full
concentration (work and sleep come to mind), be out of cell range, have
forgotten my phone, have a dead battery etc. I have seen people get upset over
not having their texts responded to and I judge them, rightfully and harshly,
as being inconsiderate, demanding, and selfish. If it is indeed a cultural
norm, it is an extremely inconsiderate norm indeed.

~~~
thinkling
Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to feel however you like. But many don't
really see any difference anymore between texting and calling, since both go
to the same device. Your objection "you should call because I may be out of
cell range or have forgotten my phone" strikes me as illogical especially for
the kind of synchronous situation like "I'm at the door, your doorbell doesn't
seem to work."

~~~
joesmo
The difference is that texts are easy to miss. Not only that, but by calling
you have established synchronous communication. If the recipient doesn't pick
up, then you know you have no expectation of a response while the opposite is
true if he does. On the other hand, there's no guarantee that your text
message was even delivered, this assuming that your recipient should receive
it and act upon it is quite presumptuous. That's the difference. Calling
establishes a communication channel that texting does not. If one does not
pick up the caller knees there is no such channel established and thus no
expectation of communication.

------
nlh
Just a commentary on the bigger picture: I strongly disagree with the notion
that talking on the phone while driving is always bad (yes, I know, some
people are particularly bad at it and shouldn't do it, but those people
probably shouldn't be talking at all or...in many cases...driving at all.)

But texting while driving is _really bad_. I've done it far too much, and
every single time I note how totally distracted, worse-performing, and
basically crappy I am at the driving part (and I am a good driver when not
distracted).

Why did I do it? Because for better or for worse, some people have gotten so
used to this world of instant communications that if you don't reply quickly
enough, they actually get concerned -- "why aren't you answering me? is
everything ok?"

So my solution is twofold: 1. I've stopped responding to people so quickly.
And if they protest, I explain: I was driving. Chill out. I'm fine. Everything
is fine. 2. And if it really can't wait, I just make a call. "I'm driving -
don't want to text. What's up?"

We really, really, really shouldn't be texting or writing emails while
driving. It's bad news for everyone.

------
millstone
> People know they shouldn’t text and drive.

People know they shouldn't drink and drive either. But the legal BAC limit is
not zero. We tolerate a small amount of increased risk to be able to enjoy a
beer or glass of wine at a restaurant.

So why this absolutist, zero tolerance approach for texting? Are there no
legitimate reasons for texting while driving?

I found out my wife was in labor via a text message that I received while
driving. When I reached a stoplight, I sent back omw (expands to On my way!)
and drove home instead.

Another time, I was returning home from a long road trip, and hit bad stop-
and-go traffic. After sitting in it for fifteen minutes, I texted my wife to
let her know I would be delayed.

Obviously texting while joyriding at 70 mph is stupid and ought to be illegal,
but I don't see the harm in sending one or two quick messages while stopped or
moving at very low speeds. We should have a balanced approach to texting while
driving, like we do with alcohol.

~~~
lutusp
> Are there no legitimate reasons for texting while driving?

Not if you're driving -- it's inexcusable. It's hard enough to type on a small
device's virtual keyboard while sitting at a desk without any distractions,
much less while trying to move a massive, potentially lethal weapon along the
public roads.

> I don't see the harm in sending one or two quick messages while stopped or
> moving at very low speeds.

That's a classic slippery slope -- society would rightly forbid texting simply
because different people would define "quick messages" and "very low speeds"
differently.

------
cenhyperion
To me this is akin to limiting all vehicles to under 70 MPH to ensure no one
speeds recklessly.

The solution is to train our drivers better and start actually pulling people
over for using phones while driving, not cripple the capabilities of the
technology we have.

------
AshFurrow
> At that point, Katasi generally doesn’t block the messages on the assumption
> that the passenger will prevent the driver from texting.

Yeah, like that's going to work.

This whole thing seems like an over-complicated, over-engineered technical
solution to a cultural problem.

------
yzzxy
This is smart. Cellular jamming is mega-illegal in the US (even in
prisons![0]), and when I first read through this article I missed part of the
first paragraph and couldn't understand how this product could be sold.

However, the idea of working with network providers is great, and opens the
door to a lot more options, such disabling cellphones in bars, resturants,
etc. based on complex filters (e.g., allow "emergency" texts or only from
close family).

I bet the movie theater industry will jump on this quickly.

[0] [http://www.wired.com/2010/03/prison-mobile-phone-debate-
jamm...](http://www.wired.com/2010/03/prison-mobile-phone-debate-jammed-up-in-
the-system/)

~~~
superuser2
Why is it the responsibility or even the right of carriers to deny people the
service they pay for simply because it annoys you?

Texting while driving is a public safety hazard, and that's pretty
unambiguous. From where do you derive the right to control what I do in a bar
or restauraunt?

~~~
e40
_Why is it the responsibility or even the right of carriers to deny people the
service they pay for simply because it annoys you?_

Exactly!! Are we so immature that we can't take responsibility for our own
behavior and want laws and systems to do for us what we should do for
ourselves?

~~~
rayiner
Because a sufficiently large percentage of the population is shitbags.

~~~
RichardFord
Yeah, it's always the other guy that needs strict parenting from the
government right?

~~~
rayiner
The majority of people who just want to live safe, comfortable, predictable
lives have a right to use government to protect themselves from the (very
substantial) minority of people who are shitbags.

~~~
RichardFord
Predictable? There's autocratic regimes out there where life is much more
predictable. We probably more laws to keep government and other autocratic
shitbags in check.

~~~
rayiner
Yes, predictability is something normal people value, and are entitled to
structure their society to encourage.

