4 ms·

We now need an ignition interlock device for these people -- that will shut down the car if there's a phone inside that's not in airplane mode. Like they have

We now need an ignition interlock device for these people -- that will shut down the car if there's a phone inside that's not in airplane mode. Like they have for DUI doofuses.

helterskelter 11mo ago
Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Same idea as hate crimes, just for social media.
- bronson 11mo ago
  Clout enhancement clause
- gruez 11mo ago
  >Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Sounds like something that could be easily abused for cracking down on filming police or similar. Filming ICE agents arresting someone and posting on tiktok? "obstruction of justice", plus they're obviously doing it "for social media". Same for whistleblowers or security researchers.
- montroser 11mo ago
  Yeah, because it's just extra stupid and tragic. If kids are involved then the extra sentence should quadruple.
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  That doesn't actually work. The problem is people think they're not going to hit anyone and then it doesn't matter what the penalty is because they're discounting the risk of it happening to begin with. Nobody would be doing it who expected to receive the existing penalty for negligent homicide. You don't need to convince them that the penalty is high, you need to convince them that the risk is high.
  - bombcar 11mo ago
    Which is why you have to “excessively” punish the behavior you want to stop - not killing people while filming while driving, but simply filming while driving.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      That's still the same thing. What matters here is if people expect an actual penalty of any kind. Draconian penalties never help. On top of that, people are less likely to know whether there is even a law against those things since it's much less intuitively obvious. What you need to do is make them understand that it's dangerous, not to make them understand that it's illegal. People don't care about penalties unless they expect to be caught and this is one of the things where it's hard to consistently catch people in the act.
lukan 11mo ago
There are also other passengers who could use it without problem. So no. We simply need to take away the driving licence of such people.
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  Car still starts without a license is the problem, and these people do not care.
  - procaryote 11mo ago
    Put them in prison then. Don't make cars worse for everyone else
conradfr 11mo ago
That's not realistic due to GPS and music. Maybe a warning with a eye tracker or something...
- montroser 11mo ago
  Listen to the radio and use a map? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Or just don't run people over while livestreaming and you can keep your Apple Maps and Spotify.
  - mgerdts 11mo ago
    In ye olde days, drivers wrestling with maps were also criticized as being distracted and dangerous. Having been a driver in ye olde days in situations where a map was needed, I can confidently say that GPS initiated while stopped and used throughout a trip is far safer than the driver using a paper map while driving.
  - eszed 11mo ago
    Using a paper map while driving can be way more distracting than a GPS. We really don't want to push people back to doing that. Your last two sentences point in the correct direction: we can't micro-target every behavior that might possibly become a dangerous distraction, because that's just about everything. Driving safely depends on self-regulation, and people incapable of self-regulating (to a minimum standard) shouldn't be granted the privilege of a license.
    - montroser 11mo ago
      Yeah, not while driving. Before we had GPS, people would look at the map before setting off if need be. But fair point that maybe the people who are addicted to their phone are not the people who are going to diligently study the map and remember directions before they start moving. Either way, there was a whole century of people driving just fine before satnav.
      - eszed 11mo ago
wutwutwat 11mo ago
We've been able to track eye movement across a computer screen for a good 5 years to be able to see what their gaze is set to, providing heatmaps and dwell metrics. Someone just needs to put that in a car. We've also got lidar based cruise control systems to maintain distance as well as panic brake systems that can react to something in front of the vehicle faster than a human, which is partially there to account for people texting and driving while flying up on a red light with stopped traffic. We have all the tech needed to make it damn near impossible for a 2 ton mass of steal to just unflinchingly mow someone down, yet we live in a world where it's cheaper to not make those things standard, even knowing without it, more people will die than with it.
peterbecich 11mo ago
This would never be implemented I realize but here is a possible solution: New law: driver's phone must be in semi-disabled mode The phone can already infer it is inside moving vehicle. The bigger challenge is, how to determine the phone belongs to the driver? Say N passengers in car (including driver), each with cell phone. When phone infers moving vehicle, it attempts to mesh with other phones in the vehicle. If N=1, driver is solo, phone semi-disables If N>1, phones ask users to vote on who is the driver. Result: 1 phone disabled (Voting tie disables both/all) The only inconvenience here is to a passenger with a phone-less driver.

We now need an ignition interlock device for these people -- that will shut down the car if there's a phone inside that's not in airplane mode. Like they have for DUI doofuses.

helterskelter 11mo ago

Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Same idea as hate crimes, just for social media.

bronson 11mo ago
Clout enhancement clause
gruez 11mo ago
>Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Sounds like something that could be easily abused for cracking down on filming police or similar. Filming ICE agents arresting someone and posting on tiktok? "obstruction of justice", plus they're obviously doing it "for social media". Same for whistleblowers or security researchers.
montroser 11mo ago
Yeah, because it's just extra stupid and tragic. If kids are involved then the extra sentence should quadruple.
AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
That doesn't actually work. The problem is people think they're not going to hit anyone and then it doesn't matter what the penalty is because they're discounting the risk of it happening to begin with. Nobody would be doing it who expected to receive the existing penalty for negligent homicide. You don't need to convince them that the penalty is high, you need to convince them that the risk is high.
- bombcar 11mo ago
  Which is why you have to “excessively” punish the behavior you want to stop - not killing people while filming while driving, but simply filming while driving.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    That's still the same thing. What matters here is if people expect an actual penalty of any kind. Draconian penalties never help. On top of that, people are less likely to know whether there is even a law against those things since it's much less intuitively obvious. What you need to do is make them understand that it's dangerous, not to make them understand that it's illegal. People don't care about penalties unless they expect to be caught and this is one of the things where it's hard to consistently catch people in the act.

lukan 11mo ago

There are also other passengers who could use it without problem. So no. We simply need to take away the driving licence of such people.

toomuchtodo 11mo ago
Car still starts without a license is the problem, and these people do not care.
- procaryote 11mo ago
  Put them in prison then. Don't make cars worse for everyone else

conradfr 11mo ago

That's not realistic due to GPS and music. Maybe a warning with a eye tracker or something...

montroser 11mo ago
Listen to the radio and use a map? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Or just don't run people over while livestreaming and you can keep your Apple Maps and Spotify.
- mgerdts 11mo ago
  In ye olde days, drivers wrestling with maps were also criticized as being distracted and dangerous. Having been a driver in ye olde days in situations where a map was needed, I can confidently say that GPS initiated while stopped and used throughout a trip is far safer than the driver using a paper map while driving.
- eszed 11mo ago
  Using a paper map while driving can be way more distracting than a GPS. We really don't want to push people back to doing that. Your last two sentences point in the correct direction: we can't micro-target every behavior that might possibly become a dangerous distraction, because that's just about everything. Driving safely depends on self-regulation, and people incapable of self-regulating (to a minimum standard) shouldn't be granted the privilege of a license.
  - montroser 11mo ago
    Yeah, not while driving. Before we had GPS, people would look at the map before setting off if need be. But fair point that maybe the people who are addicted to their phone are not the people who are going to diligently study the map and remember directions before they start moving. Either way, there was a whole century of people driving just fine before satnav.
    - eszed 11mo ago

wutwutwat 11mo ago

We've been able to track eye movement across a computer screen for a good 5 years to be able to see what their gaze is set to, providing heatmaps and dwell metrics. Someone just needs to put that in a car. We've also got lidar based cruise control systems to maintain distance as well as panic brake systems that can react to something in front of the vehicle faster than a human, which is partially there to account for people texting and driving while flying up on a red light with stopped traffic. We have all the tech needed to make it damn near impossible for a 2 ton mass of steal to just unflinchingly mow someone down, yet we live in a world where it's cheaper to not make those things standard, even knowing without it, more people will die than with it.

peterbecich 11mo ago

This would never be implemented I realize but here is a possible solution: New law: driver's phone must be in semi-disabled mode The phone can already infer it is inside moving vehicle. The bigger challenge is, how to determine the phone belongs to the driver? Say N passengers in car (including driver), each with cell phone. When phone infers moving vehicle, it attempts to mesh with other phones in the vehicle. If N=1, driver is solo, phone semi-disables If N>1, phones ask users to vote on who is the driver. Result: 1 phone disabled (Voting tie disables both/all) The only inconvenience here is to a passenger with a phone-less driver.