4 ms·

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

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...

Drakim 8y ago
Maybe the real boon will be the way it can be used like drug dogs, to give "probable cause" on command to the police.
- TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
  We don't really have probably cause in that sense in the UK. Any driver can be stopped at any time purely to check documents if required - police don't need to have a reason.
  - devoply 8y ago
    Probable cause is used to search the car. Police can't randomly search cars. However in order to target areas with minorities who are involved with drugs, they use police dogs that can supposedly sniff drugs. But the dogs really just read their handlers and bark when their handlers want them to. Police can stop anyone at any time for documents. /papers please Recently in Canada a driver was charged for distracted driving for simply wearing headphones while driving. The judge decided that regardless of whether they were functional or not he was guilty. All these things just point to the fact that you don't want to deal with the police or with the law as both them don't really care about reality, just their manufactured fictions they use to justify their power over people. As Fault called it biopower.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      That's not true in the UK. Police can use reasonable grounds to search and they don't need a dog to alert to give them those reasonable grounds. The dogs, if used, in the UK probably are sniffing actual drugs. Here's some legal information: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/legal-system-s/police-s/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-enter-private-property-and-seize-goods-s/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/le...
      - devoply 8y ago
        It looks like it's true. > You can also be searched if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect you have: > illegal drugs Use a dog. Pretend it's reasonable grounds. > In all situations, you can’t be searched just because of how you look or who you are, as this is discrimination. Yes it is and that's how you use a dog to discriminate and maintain the legal fiction.
        stordoff 8y ago
        There are only about 2,000 police dogs in the UK (1,900[1] / 2,500[2]) (vs. _about_ 50,000 in the US [3] - about five times more per capita). It seems unlikely they are being used for routine traffic stops. Furthermore, reasonable grounds is a low bar. From the code of conduct in the linked document (Scots law, but the whole UK is similar)[4]: > Reasonable suspicion may also exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of the behaviour of a person. For example, if a constable encounters someone on the street who is obviously trying to hide something, the constable may (depending on the other surrounding circumstances) base such suspicion on the fact that this kind of behaviour is often linked to stolen or prohibited articles being carried A police dog is frankly overkill for establishing reasonable grounds. [1] https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-14/debates/D856FCAE-9EF4-49CF-99A0-AF5F379BEF94/PoliceDogsAndHorses https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-14/debates/D85... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog#United_Kingdom [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/20/the-surprising-reason-more-police-dogs-are-dying-in-the-line-of-duty/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/20/the-s... [4] https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512924.pdf https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512924.pdf
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Here's the law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossh...
m0nty 8y ago
I don't think it's silly, more of an extended field test which might cause some people to put their phones away. Everyone involved is probably thinking it's of marginal benefit at the moment, but the field-test data can be used to develop the tech. Seems perfectly reasonable. The alternative would be to go "big bang" on a half-baked technology which would repeatedly fail to secure convictions. That would be silly.
- ed_balls 8y ago
  The deaths in the accident could be avoided if the vehicle had an emergency brake assist. I doubt it's possible to develop a tech that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was distracted by the phone.
ehnto 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        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.
agotterer 8y ago
There’s so many legitimate reasons for the phone to be on and transmitting in a moving car. Wouldn’t it just be cheaper and likely as effective to have a sign reminding everyone to not use their phone while driving?
- gambiting 8y ago
  Not to mention that a lot of new cars have a GSM card built-in for communication and infotainment. My Mercedes updates its own location constantly for instance, so of course is transmitting over 2G/3G while moving all the time. These signs are useless and a waste of taxpayers money.

Drakim 8y ago

Maybe the real boon will be the way it can be used like drug dogs, to give "probable cause" on command to the police.

TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
We don't really have probably cause in that sense in the UK. Any driver can be stopped at any time purely to check documents if required - police don't need to have a reason.
- devoply 8y ago
  Probable cause is used to search the car. Police can't randomly search cars. However in order to target areas with minorities who are involved with drugs, they use police dogs that can supposedly sniff drugs. But the dogs really just read their handlers and bark when their handlers want them to. Police can stop anyone at any time for documents. /papers please Recently in Canada a driver was charged for distracted driving for simply wearing headphones while driving. The judge decided that regardless of whether they were functional or not he was guilty. All these things just point to the fact that you don't want to deal with the police or with the law as both them don't really care about reality, just their manufactured fictions they use to justify their power over people. As Fault called it biopower.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    That's not true in the UK. Police can use reasonable grounds to search and they don't need a dog to alert to give them those reasonable grounds. The dogs, if used, in the UK probably are sniffing actual drugs. Here's some legal information: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/legal-system-s/police-s/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-enter-private-property-and-seize-goods-s/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/le...
    - devoply 8y ago
      It looks like it's true. > You can also be searched if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect you have: > illegal drugs Use a dog. Pretend it's reasonable grounds. > In all situations, you can’t be searched just because of how you look or who you are, as this is discrimination. Yes it is and that's how you use a dog to discriminate and maintain the legal fiction.
      - stordoff 8y ago
        There are only about 2,000 police dogs in the UK (1,900[1] / 2,500[2]) (vs. _about_ 50,000 in the US [3] - about five times more per capita). It seems unlikely they are being used for routine traffic stops. Furthermore, reasonable grounds is a low bar. From the code of conduct in the linked document (Scots law, but the whole UK is similar)[4]: > Reasonable suspicion may also exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of the behaviour of a person. For example, if a constable encounters someone on the street who is obviously trying to hide something, the constable may (depending on the other surrounding circumstances) base such suspicion on the fact that this kind of behaviour is often linked to stolen or prohibited articles being carried A police dog is frankly overkill for establishing reasonable grounds. [1] https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-14/debates/D856FCAE-9EF4-49CF-99A0-AF5F379BEF94/PoliceDogsAndHorses https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-14/debates/D85... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog#United_Kingdom [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/20/the-surprising-reason-more-police-dogs-are-dying-in-the-line-of-duty/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/20/the-s... [4] https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512924.pdf https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512924.pdf
- DanBC 8y ago
  Here's the law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossh...

m0nty 8y ago

I don't think it's silly, more of an extended field test which might cause some people to put their phones away. Everyone involved is probably thinking it's of marginal benefit at the moment, but the field-test data can be used to develop the tech. Seems perfectly reasonable. The alternative would be to go "big bang" on a half-baked technology which would repeatedly fail to secure convictions. That would be silly.

ed_balls 8y ago
The deaths in the accident could be avoided if the vehicle had an emergency brake assist. I doubt it's possible to develop a tech that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was distracted by the phone.

ehnto 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.

agotterer 8y ago

There’s so many legitimate reasons for the phone to be on and transmitting in a moving car. Wouldn’t it just be cheaper and likely as effective to have a sign reminding everyone to not use their phone while driving?

gambiting 8y ago
Not to mention that a lot of new cars have a GSM card built-in for communication and infotainment. My Mercedes updates its own location constantly for instance, so of course is transmitting over 2G/3G while moving all the time. These signs are useless and a waste of taxpayers money.