3 ms·

Not mentioned in the article, but the best solution isn’t mentioned: the FCC can mandate that consumer cell phone radios refuse to operate at over 25mph. Totall

Not mentioned in the article, but the best solution isn’t mentioned: the FCC can mandate that consumer cell phone radios refuse to operate at over 25mph. Totally within their power, technically trivial, and would save thousands of lives a year. This is one of my favorite arguments when people make arguments that some draconian measure is necessary to save lives. It’s extremely unpopular because nobody wants to go without Waze or Spotify in their car, but it would be extremely effective at saving lives. Every technology in this article is easily circumvented by people who can do basic work on their cars. Modem hacking is out of their wheelhouse, however.

davrosthedalek 4y ago
So nobody in a car can use their phones, even passengers? Technically certainly possible, but not sure that will fly. And if, it will be fun to drive around all the cars going 25 on the highway because they have an important call.
KMnO4 4y ago
If we’re going way overboard, then I think a more effective solution is to just force all manufacturers to limit cars to a max speed of 25 mph. More effective and equally unlikely to happen.
melling 4y ago
That’s because he was using data to support his argument rather than making up solutions. “Fitting intelligent speed assistance on every new vehicle as standard could eventually prevent a fifth of road deaths.” How many little lives would we save by removing cell phones? Personally, i think Waze is a great tool. How much does using it increase my chances of dying?
- nickysielicki 4y ago
  There’s a ton of data to back up the idea that cell phone usage while driving is resulting in accidents. The only part of this idea that isn’t backed by data is the idea that disabling the radio would stop people from looking at their phone while driving — but it’s probably a fair assumption, no? I’m not actually saying I want this, it’s just an effective counter-argument when people claim that we should ban ie: smoking because it would save lives.
  - Karawebnetwork 4y ago
    > The only part of this idea that isn’t backed by data is the idea that disabling the radio would stop people from looking at their phone while driving — but it’s probably a fair assumption, no? My phone has my entire music library on it. It also has all the local maps. It even has single player games. Most apps will open when offline and still have most of their features enabled.
  - melling 4y ago
    Once again, skip the hand waving and provide the data. Will we reduce car deaths by 20%, for example? Let’s get the numbers so we can make an informed decision. Hey, I’ll do it for you. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving Around 3100 deaths from: “ Distracted driving is any activity that diverts attention from driving, including talking or texting on your phone, eating and drinking, talking to people in your vehicle, fiddling with the stereo, entertainment or navigation system — anything that takes your attention away from the task of safe driving.” Now let’s get back to the major issues first. it would be great to reduce the number by half.
NickRandom 4y ago
How would that work for passengers inside the car? Does that mean they won't work? What would happen if the phone was in a bus? Does that mean they won't work? What would happen on a train? Does that mean they wouldn't work? "Technically Trivial" is doing a lot of lifting
- nickysielicki 4y ago
  Passengers would be stuck bored, too. It’s a small price to pay across society if it saves human lives, right? This isn’t a real argument, it’s rhetorical.
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
Are we forgetting about public transportation there? Climb in a bus/train and you will see that everyone is on their devices either for entertainment or work. What about emergencies calls? As a passenger, I have called 911 and road services numerous times. Calling for help on the behalf of stopped cars, warning about road debris, reporting drunk drivers, etc.

davrosthedalek 4y ago

So nobody in a car can use their phones, even passengers? Technically certainly possible, but not sure that will fly. And if, it will be fun to drive around all the cars going 25 on the highway because they have an important call.

KMnO4 4y ago

If we’re going way overboard, then I think a more effective solution is to just force all manufacturers to limit cars to a max speed of 25 mph. More effective and equally unlikely to happen.

melling 4y ago

That’s because he was using data to support his argument rather than making up solutions. “Fitting intelligent speed assistance on every new vehicle as standard could eventually prevent a fifth of road deaths.” How many little lives would we save by removing cell phones? Personally, i think Waze is a great tool. How much does using it increase my chances of dying?

nickysielicki 4y ago
There’s a ton of data to back up the idea that cell phone usage while driving is resulting in accidents. The only part of this idea that isn’t backed by data is the idea that disabling the radio would stop people from looking at their phone while driving — but it’s probably a fair assumption, no? I’m not actually saying I want this, it’s just an effective counter-argument when people claim that we should ban ie: smoking because it would save lives.
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  > The only part of this idea that isn’t backed by data is the idea that disabling the radio would stop people from looking at their phone while driving — but it’s probably a fair assumption, no? My phone has my entire music library on it. It also has all the local maps. It even has single player games. Most apps will open when offline and still have most of their features enabled.
- melling 4y ago
  Once again, skip the hand waving and provide the data. Will we reduce car deaths by 20%, for example? Let’s get the numbers so we can make an informed decision. Hey, I’ll do it for you. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving Around 3100 deaths from: “ Distracted driving is any activity that diverts attention from driving, including talking or texting on your phone, eating and drinking, talking to people in your vehicle, fiddling with the stereo, entertainment or navigation system — anything that takes your attention away from the task of safe driving.” Now let’s get back to the major issues first. it would be great to reduce the number by half.

NickRandom 4y ago

How would that work for passengers inside the car? Does that mean they won't work? What would happen if the phone was in a bus? Does that mean they won't work? What would happen on a train? Does that mean they wouldn't work? "Technically Trivial" is doing a lot of lifting

nickysielicki 4y ago
Passengers would be stuck bored, too. It’s a small price to pay across society if it saves human lives, right? This isn’t a real argument, it’s rhetorical.

Karawebnetwork 4y ago

Are we forgetting about public transportation there? Climb in a bus/train and you will see that everyone is on their devices either for entertainment or work. What about emergencies calls? As a passenger, I have called 911 and road services numerous times. Calling for help on the behalf of stopped cars, warning about road debris, reporting drunk drivers, etc.