5 ms·

I'm a cyclist. Over the past 5 years or so I've learned to check inside of people's cars to see if they have a phone in their hands. If they do, I try to keep a

I'm a cyclist. Over the past 5 years or so I've learned to check inside of people's cars to see if they have a phone in their hands. If they do, I try to keep as much distance between myself and them as possible. Until we change the incentives, distracted driving is very likely to remain a problem. Right now there's a lot of talk but very little action. I live in Austin, and I've spoken with the police about distracted driving after nearly being hit by a driver who ran a red light because they were distracted by their phone. (I spoke with them afterward.) The police tell me that they periodically do distracted driving enforcement operations, but only in school zones so that they get double fines. I've never seen a single distracted driving enforcement operation in Austin, but I've gone through cyclist stop sign enforcement twice. It would be interesting to see the statistics here. How many people are ticketed for distracted driving every year?

devoply 8y ago
It's trivial to mandate a phone be designed so that it can't be used in a moving car or for a certain amount of time since it has experienced significant acceleration. In fact you could ban certain apps like txting and calling during these times. I guess you could even mandate tech to help the phone figure out where in the car the person is sitting and only disable their phone.
- aqme28 8y ago
  It would be hard to filter out the false positives. I'm almost always a passenger or riding a train. Locking out my phone during either of those situations would be a problem.
  - btrettel 8y ago
    I can recall a girl playing Pokemon Go on a train. The app seemed to detect the motion and asked her if she was driving every 10 minutes or so.
    - slavik81 8y ago
      It's quite frequent even if you're standing still. GPS drift, noise and corrections cause a lot of false positives for movement.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Getting killed or maimed is a bigger problem.
- butisaidsudo 8y ago
  So even passengers wouldn't be allowed to use their phones?
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Yes.
- mindslight 8y ago
  > It's trivial to mandate a phone be designed so that it can't be used in a moving car or for a certain amount of time since it has experienced significant acceleration No, no it is not. Because a phone is a computer. And a computer should be ultimately under its owners control, running software they choose. The reason why we have a "war on general purpose computing" is because there are many things that would seemingly be fixed if all computers could simply be made to enforce policy, yet actually mandating they be setup to do so requires going down the path of digital totalitarianism.
  - the_pwner224 8y ago
    I was going to write a rebuttal to this, but mindslight is right. It is the government's job to restrict the usage of technologies that can be very dangerous. But in all the cases we have, the restriction is done via the law enforcers, not via the technology. It's mandated that you can't drive a car without a license. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the car. It's mandated that you can't own a gun unless you meet certain criteria. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the gun. And so on... It can be mandated that you can't use a phone while driving. But the enforcement must be done by the cops, not by the phone. If the cops don't do it correctly, then the right course of action is to fix that, not to restrict the phone. Because once we do start restricting ubiquitous personal devices in order to enforce the government's rules, it will never stop. Democracy can never work if freedom is granted by the government - the people must be able to do whatever they want, with the government potentially revoking a person's freedom after the violation if it finds one.
    - mindslight 8y ago
      There are actually plenty of examples of devices themselves having legally mandated restrictions that undermine their own possible uses. There are even purpose-built computing devices (eg a car's ECU) which I am leaving out of this argument. The problem is that with software on a general purpose computer, the issue must be taken to its logical extreme. Presumably someone advocating for digital restrictions doesn't envision settling for merely having the default install exhibit a behavior that can be changed with two minutes of following online instructions. Simply creating a restriction is not enough - for it to be effective, it must be fortified. And that's the trouble, for the only way for that to happen is the platform to be fully locked down, removing the user's ability to modify. Phones are already perilously close to this regime, but manufacturers seem to not be seriously addressing rooting for right now. We can look to other areas (eg wifi routers) to see manufacturers only getting the idea because of half-baked government policy, and its needless chilling effects on software freedom. (of course I haven't said anything about texting and driving itself, so you should just assume I think it's a bad idea like any reasonable person. I'm just pointing out that arguing for outlawing Free phones to prevent it is of the same non-starter category as arguing for outlawing cars)
JWLong 8y ago
Which is odd, considering that they made a big hoopla about buying a bus to get an angle down on cars, to check. https://www.kut.org/post/battle-texting-and-driving-austin-police-turn-element-surprise https://www.kut.org/post/battle-texting-and-driving-austin-p...
- btrettel 8y ago
  Interesting. That article is dated after I spoke to the police, so perhaps they've changed their strategy. Though I still have not personally seen any evidence of actual enforcement.
meesles 8y ago
I see the new Subaru's have this feature where they seem to track your eyes and alert you if you're looking down at your lap. I think that could be a possible solution, it needs to be in the vehicle since the vehicle is the thing causing the damage, not the mobile device. I don't like Apple's method: When it senses you moving (which gets triggered for false positives as mentioned), it locks your phone unless you press the big button that says "I'm not driving.". Let's be real, if you're going after the people who actively text and whatever while driving, a single button press is not a real barrier to entry.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  The problem for Apple is they don't know you're not a passenger.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Let's make that Apple's problem and not that of the people they kill. If the phone cannot distinguish driver from passenger, shut it off.
    - the_pwner224 8y ago
      A phone is a tool. It is good for tools to discourage hazardous usage, but that doesn't absolve the user of the responsibility to use the tool correctly. Making tools liable for their stupid users is not a good idea.
      - dredmorbius 8y ago
        The "tool" has created, of itself, a class of lethal risks to uninvolved and nonbeneficiary third parties, through deliberate psychological engineering on the part of the manufacturer, which removing or disabling the "tool" would cure.
    - kalleboo 8y ago
      Should it also shut off for the millions of train passengers?
stiGGG 8y ago
>I'm a cyclist. Over the past 5 years or so I've learned to check inside of people's cars to see if they have a phone in their hands. If they do, I try to keep as much distance between myself and them as possible. I guess this is something a self driving car should also keep in mind. Next we have to click on tiles with people using phones before login.
- btrettel 8y ago
  It seems to me that many drivers and cyclists have unique strategies that could be useful for self-driving cars. My father has a good one for going around blind corners and going up blind hills at night: Check trees and other objects in the direct path of oncoming traffic for light. I also tend to look around buildings now, which is something self-driving cars probably already do but many drivers don't.
  - cc439 8y ago
    >My father has a good one for going around blind corners and going up blind hills at night: Check trees and other objects in the direct path of oncoming traffic for light. Back in high school, I convinced one of my friends that I had a 6th sense for cars approaching on a long drive back home at night. My trick was that the light from a cars headlights slightly reflects off the semi-gloss black rubber of powerlines and we lived in an area where everything was still on poles. I never noticed this effect on tree leaves but the power/telephone line trick worked really well because a ~6 foot section would be slightly lit, presenting a very large (but thin) target for your eye to see.
    - btrettel 8y ago
      Thanks, I was hoping someone would have another good object to check. Where my father mentioned this, there weren't any visible power lines as far as I can recall.
      - mastox 8y ago
        I wonder if something similar happens with the lines on the road, or crops like corn/soybeans, or even tall grasses.
JohnCohorn 8y ago
They are constantly looking for people looking at their phone while driving. Quite regularly in certain areas, like along Cesar Chavez downtown. I know because I've been ticketed!
- btrettel 8y ago
  Glad to hear there's enforcement. I don't go downtown, so I wouldn't really know about that location. I'd prefer if they moved farther north. I've seen a lot of distracted driving on Manor, probably more than anywhere else.
vkou 8y ago
> but I've gone through cyclist stop sign enforcement twice. That's because as a cyclist on the road, you are inconveniencing the operators of highly-lethal, 4,000 lb machines. If you haven't crossed your i's, and dotted your t's, you need to be removed from the road, for their convenience.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
megy 8y ago
As a cyclist, I try to keep as much space from a car as I can. A particularly worrying time for me is when I am traveling around the same speed as a car. So many times I have almost been hit, and a few time shit by someone just turning. This is not a problem when you are passing cars or they pass you, because they see you. But yes, fuck people using their phones while driving. It happens every single day, every third car sometimes.
- hermitdev 8y ago
  I used commute on I294 in Chicago. The drive home was awful. In bumper to bumper traffic, speed oscillating between 0 and 45. Id look around me and typically I'd see 5 or 6 people in my immediate vicinity would be on their phones. Id see people watching videos, texting, talking. It was appalling. I was hit 3 times last year. Pretty sure at 2 of the times it was due to distracted driving and the 3rd due to the asshole being an impatient and rude prick trying to skip the line and jump in. When I was read ended, the woman that hit me rolled into me at a red light. We had been sitting there for a minute or so, stopped and just as the light was about to turn green, just rolls into me. I get out and check my bumper, and there's a crack in the paint and about a dime size dent. Not a lot, right? I was expecting a around a $500-600 repair, and that was the initial estimate range. When they got in there and removed the bumper, found a lot more damage. Ended up with a new bumper, impact absorption materials and backup sensors. Ended up being around a $4k repair. All because she was distracted at a stop light. Mind I didnt have to pay that, but it was still an inconvenience having my car in the body shop for a few weeks. The kicker is, she got out to look at the damage and tried to claim there was no damage. I called the police to get a report. She started freaking out and getting hysterical, yelling at me and pulling at my arm I'm holding my phone with, while I'm on the phone with the police. I got back in my car and locked the doors and stayed in there until the police arrived. Crazy woman kept pounding on my window until the officer showed up. Not sure if she was cited, but I got the police report with her listed at fault, which is what I wanted to make dealing with insurance easier. /rant
madshiva 8y ago
Seriously, I know that I may be downvoted but the main reason is because we are moving too slow. Cyclist should not be in the same lane, road than a car for a speed reason and place, but maybe in Austin there's plenty of space but I doubt that is so safe to ride that bike.
fzeroracer 8y ago
I live in Austin as well and unfortunately I can't see myself cycling anywhere in town. Not only would I have to cycle on the roads due to a lack of biking paths and sidewalks around my area, but having to deal with reckless drivers threatening my life is too much. It's only going to get worse as more companies move to Austin while the city lags behind on infrastructure.
jeffwass 8y ago
Cyclists do the same thing. I’m primarily a pedestrian, and lately I’ve seen too many cyclists texting while cycling and blowing through red lights and zebra (pedestrian) crossings as well as riding on the pavement/sidewalks. This is in London. And for that matter, pedestrians also check their phones while walking and put themselves in danger or just obstruct the pedestrian flow around them. Luckily that is less likely to harm somebody than a car or cyclist. But let’s not restrict this issue to just drivers. There’s a universal obsession with phones, and people who are unable to stop themselves (whether driving, cycling, walking) if they do need to send a text or email.

devoply 8y ago

It's trivial to mandate a phone be designed so that it can't be used in a moving car or for a certain amount of time since it has experienced significant acceleration. In fact you could ban certain apps like txting and calling during these times. I guess you could even mandate tech to help the phone figure out where in the car the person is sitting and only disable their phone.

aqme28 8y ago
It would be hard to filter out the false positives. I'm almost always a passenger or riding a train. Locking out my phone during either of those situations would be a problem.
- btrettel 8y ago
  I can recall a girl playing Pokemon Go on a train. The app seemed to detect the motion and asked her if she was driving every 10 minutes or so.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    It's quite frequent even if you're standing still. GPS drift, noise and corrections cause a lot of false positives for movement.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Getting killed or maimed is a bigger problem.
butisaidsudo 8y ago
So even passengers wouldn't be allowed to use their phones?
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Yes.
mindslight 8y ago
> It's trivial to mandate a phone be designed so that it can't be used in a moving car or for a certain amount of time since it has experienced significant acceleration No, no it is not. Because a phone is a computer. And a computer should be ultimately under its owners control, running software they choose. The reason why we have a "war on general purpose computing" is because there are many things that would seemingly be fixed if all computers could simply be made to enforce policy, yet actually mandating they be setup to do so requires going down the path of digital totalitarianism.
- the_pwner224 8y ago
  I was going to write a rebuttal to this, but mindslight is right. It is the government's job to restrict the usage of technologies that can be very dangerous. But in all the cases we have, the restriction is done via the law enforcers, not via the technology. It's mandated that you can't drive a car without a license. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the car. It's mandated that you can't own a gun unless you meet certain criteria. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the gun. And so on... It can be mandated that you can't use a phone while driving. But the enforcement must be done by the cops, not by the phone. If the cops don't do it correctly, then the right course of action is to fix that, not to restrict the phone. Because once we do start restricting ubiquitous personal devices in order to enforce the government's rules, it will never stop. Democracy can never work if freedom is granted by the government - the people must be able to do whatever they want, with the government potentially revoking a person's freedom after the violation if it finds one.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    There are actually plenty of examples of devices themselves having legally mandated restrictions that undermine their own possible uses. There are even purpose-built computing devices (eg a car's ECU) which I am leaving out of this argument. The problem is that with software on a general purpose computer, the issue must be taken to its logical extreme. Presumably someone advocating for digital restrictions doesn't envision settling for merely having the default install exhibit a behavior that can be changed with two minutes of following online instructions. Simply creating a restriction is not enough - for it to be effective, it must be fortified. And that's the trouble, for the only way for that to happen is the platform to be fully locked down, removing the user's ability to modify. Phones are already perilously close to this regime, but manufacturers seem to not be seriously addressing rooting for right now. We can look to other areas (eg wifi routers) to see manufacturers only getting the idea because of half-baked government policy, and its needless chilling effects on software freedom. (of course I haven't said anything about texting and driving itself, so you should just assume I think it's a bad idea like any reasonable person. I'm just pointing out that arguing for outlawing Free phones to prevent it is of the same non-starter category as arguing for outlawing cars)

JWLong 8y ago

Which is odd, considering that they made a big hoopla about buying a bus to get an angle down on cars, to check. https://www.kut.org/post/battle-texting-and-driving-austin-police-turn-element-surprise https://www.kut.org/post/battle-texting-and-driving-austin-p...

btrettel 8y ago
Interesting. That article is dated after I spoke to the police, so perhaps they've changed their strategy. Though I still have not personally seen any evidence of actual enforcement.

meesles 8y ago

I see the new Subaru's have this feature where they seem to track your eyes and alert you if you're looking down at your lap. I think that could be a possible solution, it needs to be in the vehicle since the vehicle is the thing causing the damage, not the mobile device. I don't like Apple's method: When it senses you moving (which gets triggered for false positives as mentioned), it locks your phone unless you press the big button that says "I'm not driving.". Let's be real, if you're going after the people who actively text and whatever while driving, a single button press is not a real barrier to entry.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
The problem for Apple is they don't know you're not a passenger.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Let's make that Apple's problem and not that of the people they kill. If the phone cannot distinguish driver from passenger, shut it off.
  - the_pwner224 8y ago
    A phone is a tool. It is good for tools to discourage hazardous usage, but that doesn't absolve the user of the responsibility to use the tool correctly. Making tools liable for their stupid users is not a good idea.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      The "tool" has created, of itself, a class of lethal risks to uninvolved and nonbeneficiary third parties, through deliberate psychological engineering on the part of the manufacturer, which removing or disabling the "tool" would cure.
  - kalleboo 8y ago
    Should it also shut off for the millions of train passengers?

stiGGG 8y ago

>I'm a cyclist. Over the past 5 years or so I've learned to check inside of people's cars to see if they have a phone in their hands. If they do, I try to keep as much distance between myself and them as possible. I guess this is something a self driving car should also keep in mind. Next we have to click on tiles with people using phones before login.

btrettel 8y ago
It seems to me that many drivers and cyclists have unique strategies that could be useful for self-driving cars. My father has a good one for going around blind corners and going up blind hills at night: Check trees and other objects in the direct path of oncoming traffic for light. I also tend to look around buildings now, which is something self-driving cars probably already do but many drivers don't.
- cc439 8y ago
  >My father has a good one for going around blind corners and going up blind hills at night: Check trees and other objects in the direct path of oncoming traffic for light. Back in high school, I convinced one of my friends that I had a 6th sense for cars approaching on a long drive back home at night. My trick was that the light from a cars headlights slightly reflects off the semi-gloss black rubber of powerlines and we lived in an area where everything was still on poles. I never noticed this effect on tree leaves but the power/telephone line trick worked really well because a ~6 foot section would be slightly lit, presenting a very large (but thin) target for your eye to see.
  - btrettel 8y ago
    Thanks, I was hoping someone would have another good object to check. Where my father mentioned this, there weren't any visible power lines as far as I can recall.
    - mastox 8y ago
      I wonder if something similar happens with the lines on the road, or crops like corn/soybeans, or even tall grasses.

JohnCohorn 8y ago

They are constantly looking for people looking at their phone while driving. Quite regularly in certain areas, like along Cesar Chavez downtown. I know because I've been ticketed!

btrettel 8y ago
Glad to hear there's enforcement. I don't go downtown, so I wouldn't really know about that location. I'd prefer if they moved farther north. I've seen a lot of distracted driving on Manor, probably more than anywhere else.

vkou 8y ago

> but I've gone through cyclist stop sign enforcement twice. That's because as a cyclist on the road, you are inconveniencing the operators of highly-lethal, 4,000 lb machines. If you haven't crossed your i's, and dotted your t's, you need to be removed from the road, for their convenience.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

megy 8y ago

As a cyclist, I try to keep as much space from a car as I can. A particularly worrying time for me is when I am traveling around the same speed as a car. So many times I have almost been hit, and a few time shit by someone just turning. This is not a problem when you are passing cars or they pass you, because they see you. But yes, fuck people using their phones while driving. It happens every single day, every third car sometimes.

hermitdev 8y ago
I used commute on I294 in Chicago. The drive home was awful. In bumper to bumper traffic, speed oscillating between 0 and 45. Id look around me and typically I'd see 5 or 6 people in my immediate vicinity would be on their phones. Id see people watching videos, texting, talking. It was appalling. I was hit 3 times last year. Pretty sure at 2 of the times it was due to distracted driving and the 3rd due to the asshole being an impatient and rude prick trying to skip the line and jump in. When I was read ended, the woman that hit me rolled into me at a red light. We had been sitting there for a minute or so, stopped and just as the light was about to turn green, just rolls into me. I get out and check my bumper, and there's a crack in the paint and about a dime size dent. Not a lot, right? I was expecting a around a $500-600 repair, and that was the initial estimate range. When they got in there and removed the bumper, found a lot more damage. Ended up with a new bumper, impact absorption materials and backup sensors. Ended up being around a $4k repair. All because she was distracted at a stop light. Mind I didnt have to pay that, but it was still an inconvenience having my car in the body shop for a few weeks. The kicker is, she got out to look at the damage and tried to claim there was no damage. I called the police to get a report. She started freaking out and getting hysterical, yelling at me and pulling at my arm I'm holding my phone with, while I'm on the phone with the police. I got back in my car and locked the doors and stayed in there until the police arrived. Crazy woman kept pounding on my window until the officer showed up. Not sure if she was cited, but I got the police report with her listed at fault, which is what I wanted to make dealing with insurance easier. /rant

madshiva 8y ago

Seriously, I know that I may be downvoted but the main reason is because we are moving too slow. Cyclist should not be in the same lane, road than a car for a speed reason and place, but maybe in Austin there's plenty of space but I doubt that is so safe to ride that bike.

fzeroracer 8y ago

I live in Austin as well and unfortunately I can't see myself cycling anywhere in town. Not only would I have to cycle on the roads due to a lack of biking paths and sidewalks around my area, but having to deal with reckless drivers threatening my life is too much. It's only going to get worse as more companies move to Austin while the city lags behind on infrastructure.

jeffwass 8y ago

Cyclists do the same thing. I’m primarily a pedestrian, and lately I’ve seen too many cyclists texting while cycling and blowing through red lights and zebra (pedestrian) crossings as well as riding on the pavement/sidewalks. This is in London. And for that matter, pedestrians also check their phones while walking and put themselves in danger or just obstruct the pedestrian flow around them. Luckily that is less likely to harm somebody than a car or cyclist. But let’s not restrict this issue to just drivers. There’s a universal obsession with phones, and people who are unable to stop themselves (whether driving, cycling, walking) if they do need to send a text or email.