Company Claims New System Will Automatically Detect Drivers On Phones

from the good-luck-with-that dept

We've had all sorts of stories about speed cameras and the problems they can cause -- but there's no doubt that it's quite a lucrative business for the providers of the speed cameras (who often agree to install them for free in exchange for keeping a percentage of the ticket proceeds). Of course, with the speed camera and red light camera market getting saturated, what other driving offenses can companies try to automate systems to catch? According to Slashdot, one company is working on a system to automatically determine if drivers are driving while talking on their mobile phones. There are all sorts of questions raised by this. Already we've seen supporters of laws against driving while yakking rethink their position, as it's not the yakking that's the problem -- but driver's doing anything distracting while driving -- and banning things one by one isn't an effective solution. However, a bigger point is how could this technology possibly work? How can it tell that the driver is talking rather than a passenger? How can it distinguish between a driver using a mobile phone or an earpiece (or a system like OnStar?)? None of these questions are answered at all -- and there's also some bizarre offhand comment about how the system can use a paintball gun to mark cars for police to ticket, which makes it sound like the whole thing might just be a spoof rather than anything real. In the meantime, what's next? A device to automatically catch people having sex while driving? Or what about a device to catch people eating spaghetti while driving?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Lynne, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 7:36am

    Paintball Gun?

    Sounds fake to me. For one, a paintballs gun would likely cause damage to the car. It's one thing to ticket someone, but denting their car?!... I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Boost, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:28am

      Re: Paintball Gun?

      Speaking from personal experience, paintball guns definitely cause damage to cars. Not by denting the metal but often by permantely marring the finish. I bet the government wouldn't like too many lawsuits by people who've had 5-10 thousand dollar paint jobs ruinted for a 100 dollar ticket.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lynne, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 7:36am

    Paintball Gun?

    Sounds fake to me. For one, a paintballs gun would likely cause damage to the car. It's one thing to ticket someone, but denting their car?!... I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lynne, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 7:36am

    Paintball Gun?

    Sounds fake to me. For one, a paintballs gun would likely cause damage to the car. It's one thing to ticket someone, but denting their car?!... I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lynne, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 7:37am

    O_O

    Umm... why did my comment appear 3 times? O_o ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Overcast, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:04am

    That's a stupid idea - it wouldn't work right - you'd end up having people even more distracted, as they would talk on the phones anyway, while looking for these 'detection' units rather than watching the road.

    It's no different than someone fooling with their car stereo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TheDock22, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:07am

    Does this scare anyone else?

    Statistics show that driving while talking on the cell phone increases the chance of an accident by 400%

    So, basically that means if I talk on my cell phone while driving I am not only guaranteed to get into an accident, but also wreck 3 other peoples' cars? Hmm...I think someone out there is making up statistics again.

    The company attaches a paint gun to mark the car, or even an EMP gun that can disable the offending cell phone.

    Now the paintball marker idea is kind of funny. I like the idea of driving around looking at vehicles with paintballs on them. Might just be me though. Now the EMP gun scares the daylights out of me. My cell phone was not cheap, and I guarantee any company that creates a device to ruin my cell phone is getting sued. Also, what if I just have my cell phone in the car and the person ahead of me sets off the EMP gun...does that mean my cell phone would be ruined to?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Chronno S. Trigger, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:30am

      Re: Does this scare anyone else?

      EMP Gun? That not only would affect your phone but it would also kill the car and every other electronic devices in it that are on.

      This has got to be fake. Paint balls are one thing they may or may not dent the car but the paint should just wash off. But EMPs are not something you want to be using in a heavily populated area. (Especially when in a car with power steering and ABS)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      boost, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:32am

      Re: Does this scare anyone else?

      Does someone have trouble with math?

      If your likely hood of getting into an accident is 100 percnet already then increasing it by 400 percent would increase your likelihood of an accident by an impossible amount "...but also wreck 3 other peoples' cars?" However, if your likelihood of an accident on the way home from work were say 2% then increasing that likelihood by 400% would only increase the likelihood of an accident to 8%.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        TheDock22, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:54am

        Re: Re: Does this scare anyone else?

        Ah I see, and I also know why they say 400%. An increase from 2% to 8% doesn't exactly make me want to turn-off my cell phone in a vehicle.

        I agree that the paint ball marker probably isn't a high-force one and that the paint balls are pretty soft to begin with. That would cause the paint ball to explode on a slight impact. I mean, probably about the same as throwing a small snowball at a car made with fluffy snow. It just explodes, but doesn't leave a dent. And it's easy to make paint that won't stain the vehicle.

        The EMP gun is weird though. Maybe an EMP signal strong enough to disable a phone isn't strong enough to disable the vehicle? I don't know, I'm not an expert, but it still scares me.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ray Thomasson, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 10:08am

      Re: Does this scare anyone else?

      You dumb ass, increasing the chance of an accident by 400% just means it is 4 times as likely that you will have an accident. For instance, if the chances of having an accident while not talking on the phone were one in 1,200, then while talking on the phone the chances would be one in 300, which increased the likelihood by 400%. Don't accuse people of making up statistics just because you don't understand what they are saying.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Ray Thomasson, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 10:14am

        Re: Re: Does this scare anyone else?

        On another note, many people are right that cellphones aren't the only distrations people have in their cars. I actually saw a guy the other day who was clearly distracted while driving. He was all over the lane. When I got close to him, he actually had a paperback book propped up on his steering wheel reading it. Made me want to make a citizen's arrest.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        TheDock22, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re: Does this scare anyone else?

        I'm sorry, but do your eyes not work? I hate people like you who do not read through the entire thread before posting. I agreed that I was wrong. Grow a brain and shut up.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MikeNold, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:09am

    I think we should all have flags. Then when someone does something stupid, you throw the flag. If a person gets 3 flags, they get pulled over and ticketed for being an Idiot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Boost, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:36am

      Re:

      I can't tell you how many times I'd wished I had some magnetic signs made that I could throw out my window and stick to other people's cars. They would say things like, "Improper lane usage" and "bicycles are vehicles too" and "I don't care if you want to drive slow, but try to do it so you're not blocking traffic" and my favorite one of all..."Are you in a hurry to sit at that traffic light?"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    R3d Jack, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:20am

    Darwinian process

    What a great idea! Design the paint ball gun to aim for the windshield. That way, when the perp is tagged, they will be distracted and possibly unable to see at all. This could lead to fatal accident, eliminating the problem driver permanently. As far as EMP, why not use microwaves and aim at the driver's head? Of course, both solutions could lead to problems for the passengers, but, how many drivers actually have passengers anyway?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    FatBastard, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:27am

    EMP, eh?

    Seems to me an EMP would knock out the car's fuel delivery system, emissions computer, so on and so forth. I don't see this being attempted anytime soon. I also don't know EMP to be directable. Aren't they omnidirectional?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Matt, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 2:41pm

      Re: EMP, eh?

      umm...yeah ruining the car and cell phone may be bad, but don't EMP guns also have the capability of killing people with pacemakers?

      This just in... the new punishment for driving while talking on a cell phone is instant death!

      :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Aaron (profile), Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:30am

    Use of EMPs

    But using EMPs would also disable the car, causing a even greater risk on the road, not to mention a freeway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:44am

    clearly this is fake, EMP would take out many cars & etc. While paint ball guns capable of hitting a car at highways has an extremely high potential for being fatal. (see: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/10/22/postgame_police_projectile_kills_an _emerson_student/)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ReallyEvilCanine, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 8:49am

    Unworkable

    TheDock22: back to math class. A 400% increase in the chance of something happening means the odds have quadrupled. If you're chances of being in an accident are 0.00271%/1,000 miles without the cell phone, they've shot up to 0,01084%/1,000 miles with it.

    As Mike wrote (and I almost missed), how could any system tell if the person talking is the driver or a passenger? I disagree with him entirely, however, when "banning things one by one". We banned alcohol and driving and it made a huge difference. Cell phones have been shown repeatedly (and not just on MythBusters) to impair drivers more than alcohol. Unfortunately, enforcing a ban on phone usage is a bit more difficult to enforce.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Matt, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 2:43pm

      Re: Unworkable

      so find the law that makes driving drunk illegal and replace it with the driving while cellphoning law...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    dazcon5, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:15am

    driving test

    Simple solution. When you test for your license, you have to pass a "distraction" test as well. If the test shows you can drive while phoning, rocking etc... you pass. If you fail, you can't even have a cell in the car OR a stereo. The should be monstrous as well. You can't fix stupid...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The infamous Joe, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:16am

    I'm a dork.

    On topic: This has to be fake. Unless their 'device' is a dude in a shed with a paintball gun, and if then, where do I sign up? :P

    Off topic: I read the title and thought of software drivers, not people driving. I'm a dork.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    erica, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:27am

    Distractions, not cell phones are the problem.

    Ok.. and not only the controversy about the passenger(s) using a cellphone.. what if the driver or passenger is using a system like onStar? Or, what about using a cellphone that is broadcast through the radio when its attached or any hands free system? Why disable those?

    I agree that ANY distraction while driving is dangerious.. I ever had a car totaled because a guy was on a cellphone (In a work truck nonetheless) and hit me from behind when he did not brake at a traffic light.

    But banning one object - a cellphone - will not stop people from eating while driving and other things. What about women who put makeup on while they are driving? Or parents who have kids shouting and fighting in the car while driving? Or two people are in an argument while one is driving? Someone watching a laptop computer or a GPS while driving (multiple injuries and even deaths have been reported from those electronics). All of these can be more distracting than talking on a cell phone.

    If it is not one distraction, it will be another. The controversy should be distractions, not one object - a cellphone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mark Bowness, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:28am

    I cant see how this is 'real' but then I dont know much. If it is real it has serious consequences for drives (and pedestrians) around the world, good ones at that!

    Mark Bowness

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:43am

    The article doesn't say paintball guns, it just says "paint guns". If it is real, they probably don't use a powerful paintball gun you are thinking of that will cause damage.

    That 400% comment by TheDock22 was great. Seriously?

    I agree with ReallyEvilCanine on the fact that banning things one-by-one is an effective and maybe the only possible way. If it reduces accidents and deaths, who cares if it is just one more thing banned?

    When I first read the article, I imagined the company using cellphone towers to triangulate people's coordinates in intervals; and, if they are on the road and moving faster than a human can move on their own, they would send the coordinates to patrol cars, who would confirm the usage. Paint? I don't know about that...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfman-K, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 9:46am

    Fake!

    This has to be fake, or maybe just a trial balloon. But my bets are on fake.

    (at least I am really hoping its fake.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    txjump, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 10:08am

    a bit rediculous

    i agree, you cant legislate against stupid.

    i dont really yak and drive much so it wouldnt affect me too much. but goodness! it's a bit rediculous to try catching me at talking on the phone. and who decided they wanted to develop such a tool? its probably the gps people in cahoots with some phone company.

    and not to mention, i dont wash my car but twice a year unless someone does it for me. so what happens when i get hit with paint and i leave it there for three months. do i get multiple tickets for the same offense?

    and what about motorcyle riders who have their cell in their helmet? ya just gonna pelt the rider? and what about the rider to rider helmets? is that considered talking on the phone? and cb radios? do all the truckers get painted? while its not a cell phone it is talking across the magic air waves. geez!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 10:19am

    You can legislate against stupid. That's why we have so many laws. While the system isn't perfect, it works in the sense that lives are saved and costs are reduced.

    Everyone keeps harping on how there are other distractions. Who cares? If you could ban them all at once, that would be great; but we can't. So, why does that make this ban so ridiculous?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sam, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 10:52am

    WTF! Paintball gun?! Are they freaking crazy? Paintballs typically travel around 300fps and if one hits you at pretty much anything faster than hand thrown it can BLIND YOU.

    Yeah great, now ban convertibles, rolling your windows down or using your wipers to wipe the paint off blocking your view.

    Now ban paintball guns for people since you can sit on the edge of a highway and "tag" drivers knowing they will be pulled over.

    How about a road crew using cell phones? What happens if the system sense movement + a cell and begins lobbing paintballs at the guys in orange?

    Just take a freaking picture and send the drivers a ticket, don't get overly complex.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Brian, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 12:13pm

    Cellphones while driving...

    On US Air Force bases they made it "Class A" infraction to talk on a cellphone without a hands-free device while driving. That means they can pull you over and ticket you SOLELY for using your cellphone and don't have to wait until you do something else stupid. Why is this important? If you accumulate enough points in on-base violations (or automagically if you get a DUI) you lose your base driving priviliges--and let me tell you...some of these bases are HUGE == long, long walks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Charlie on the PA Tpk, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 12:15pm

    Enough with this nonsense

    I've seen people reading newspapers, petting animals, slapping children, farding, and all sorts of other distractions, INCLUDING talking on cell phones.

    Enough! We have laws that prohibit reckless driving! Lets enforce them and stop writing new legislation on only cell phones!

    There are plenty of us out there who can talk and drive at the same time!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nasty Old Geezer, Jun 20th, 2007 @ 9:24am

      Re: Enough with this nonsense

      THe only problem is our legal system. If the law is too "vague" -- meaning the exact circumstances are not spelled out -- then most competent lawyers can show entrapment, unenforcability, discrimination, or some such crap.

      I would recommend Predator drones, and thin the herd of nitwits, but that won't happen.

      So -- ban each form of impairment as it gets identified, don't leave the cop a lot of room for interpretation, get creative with enforcement, make it hurt a little to get the nitwit's attention, save a few important lives -- like mine.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    txjump, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 12:18pm

    laws are created to protect you from other people infringing on your rights. and when someone infringes on your right, they get punished.

    the argument could be made that you have the right to reasonable safety while traveling on a highway. the ambiguity is the safety part. who decides where reasonable safety begins and ends.

    the opposing argument to that is, until i have done something to make it unsafe for you, where have i violated your rights? so why is there a law saying i cant do something.

    say its off peak hours and theres little or no traffic. im on the phone but im holding my lane, and making appropriate signals. i get taged by the gun. ive done nothing to endanger anyone but i get penalized for it.

    now, say im in peak traffic, im on the phone and im weaving and/or failing to signal. i have violated your right to safety. guess what, there is already a law in place for that. its called reckless driving and failure to signal. we dont need another law specifing that the root cause of my recklessness is illegal.

    if that were the case, we would need to make it illegal to be late for picking up your child from day care because it causes you to drive bad.

    how about instead of standing on the side of the road using some toy to nail people, the police give tickets based on the recklessnes laws already in place. failure to signal should catch plenty of phone in hand cell user.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    BTR1701, Jun 19th, 2007 @ 5:03pm

    Another problem with this...

    ...is that most anti-cell phone laws have exceptions built in to them. For example, in Washington DC it's generally illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving unless you're a law enforcement officer.

    Any system implemented to catch people would have to take into account all the false positives where people aren't actually breaking the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This