5 ms·

Please, Just Put The Phone Down And Drive

39 points by adampopescu 14y ago

flexxaeon 14y ago
Maybe I'm just anti-social, but I love that I can use driving as an excuse to ignore calls & texts, will envoke it every chance I get, and still haven't adopted a hands-free solution so I can continue doing so.
- gte910h 14y ago
  Hands free solutions do not help according to studies. That's the ironic thing about many laws requiring them. http://www.baldwinandlyons.com/publications/quill/2011/04/inattention_blindness.html http://www.baldwinandlyons.com/publications/quill/2011/04/in...
  - flexxaeon 14y ago
    excellent - another weapon in my arsenal of excuses. thanks!
  - clarkevans 14y ago
    I like the direction of his broader category, "distracted driving". For years I always thought that "baby on board" was pretentious and meant that you should be careful, because if you cause an accident you might kill a baby. Now I'm older, wiser (and have a child now). What "Baby on Board" means is that the driver is seriously distracted. edit: I'm being sarcastic; I don't see any difference between a properly implemented hands-free environment and having a passenger: you must still keep your eyes on the road, your ears listening for interesting events, and your mind tracking all the vehicles and pedestrians near you.
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      >I like the direction of his broader category, "distracted driving". I understand the sentiment, but that's too broad for me. I don't like giving the police unlimited discretion in determining whether I have broken the law or not. Tell me what I can and can't do, and I'll act accordingly.
      - ensignavenger 14y ago
        Police never have unlimited discretion in determining whether or not you have violated the law- that is for a judge and/or jury to determine. Still, I agree with the sentiment- I think we need to focus on the sociology of distracted driving, rather than the criminology.
        tatsuke95 14y ago
        >"Police never have unlimited discretion in determining whether or not you have violated the law- that is for a judge and/or jury to determine." Maybe it's up to the judge/jury to determine if you broke the law, but this certainly gives police the right to pull you over because you looked "distracted". That's too ambiguous for me.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      Then maybe we should ban babies on cars. It isn't fair to the rest of society that he have to risk our lives because you decied to have a child.
    - bryanlarsen 14y ago
      There's a huge difference between hands-free and having a passenger, and the statistics show it. Driving with a passenger is safer than driving alone. Driving while talking on your cell phone, even with a hands-free device is much more dangerous. Nobody knows exactly why, but there are many plausible theories. When you have a passenger, the passenger is generally also paying to the environment -- in essence they're helping you pay attention.
  - k3n 14y ago
    In the very least, hopefully the hands-free devices will act to discriminate against those without the setup. So while the problem isn't totally solved, it at least requires extra effort to remain legal.
- heed 14y ago
  I believe the term you're looking for is "asocial." Anti-social implies that you're sociopathic.
  - flexxaeon 14y ago
    Depends on the nature of the phone call or text message...
- R_Edward 14y ago
  I used to text and drive all the time, and scorned the laws that said I mustn't. I've never caused an accident, never strayed out of my lane, or even close to the edge, never slowed way down, never changed lanes nor turned without appropriate safety precautions first... but I've stopped. Not because of the law, or my wife's pleading, not even because I want to set a good example to my kids. But because a) I realized I was, in fact, subdividing my attention and giving too little to the more complex activity, b) I'm not nearly important enough that anyone needs an instant response to a text to me, and c) it gives me a built-in excuse to enjoy alone-time while I'm driving. Now I do occasionally sneak a look at my incoming texts or emails when I'm waiting at a red light. That's illegal too, and I don't really understand why. Maybe because it's too tempting to continue the activity after the light turns green. What really chaps my hide though, are the cops who will write you a ticket for sneaking a glance at your phone, while they have a freakin' laptop on a shelf right there in the front seat, for looking up hot women's license plates while they're tailing them.
CodeMage 14y ago
I once worked with a guy who rigged his phone and car with a gizmo that would allow him to send texts that he would input using just one button that he wouldn't even have to look at: he would just use it to tap out Morse code and when he was finished, the message would be sent via SMS. I don't remember whether he could listen to inbound messages in Morse code, but it would be a logical conclusion. I imagine it's still somewhat distracting, but a lot less than actually looking at the phone.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  The biggest problem with texting or talking while driving is that your attention is focused on texting or talking rather than on the road. Adding the additional cognitive load of interpreting Morse code may make things worse rather than better.
  - gknoy 14y ago
    If he were a HAM operator, or someone with experience doing Morse Code for a living, I expect it would probably be as nearly automatic as typing would be for you or me.
    - jff 14y ago
      Ham is not an acronym.
- adampopescu 14y ago
  who is this magician and what is his secret formula? sounds too good to be true, but still distracting.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Any smart phone should be able to do it. You just have to convert touch timing into morse code.
    - 14y ago
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Sadly, the people that can't talk and drive can't do anything and drive well simultaneously. Further, they're likely unaware of their shitty driving and will replace "Being on the phone" with something else: eating, makeup, futzing with the radio, otherwise not paying attention to what they're doing. How about: people pay the hell attention to the roader. As both a driver and biker, I'd be DEAD several times in the last two months and I'm in a medium sized city in the Midwest, it's not like there's an excuse for the times when bad drivers have been a risk to me.
Dirlewanger 14y ago
That one visceral UK anti-texting PSA needs to be mandatory viewing like, everywhere.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  This the one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E I couldn't make it through to the end.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    It is just special effects and emotional bullshit (well okay, that is most movies). Nice touch that the people who help are all men and the driver was female.
  - lancewiggs 14y ago
    New Zealand did similar advertisements a few years back, setting up car crashes with actors and not telling the emergency services that they were not real. But this recent campaign about telling your mates not to drink and drive is far more clever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRzlAiLr2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRzlAiLr2M The logic is that changing behaviour relies on helping people understand what is 'cool' and what is not cool with their friends. As anti-tobacco campaigns or anti-drug campaigns should also know, this is far more effective than the scare tactics.
    - pyrotechnick 14y ago
      I've been patiently waiting exactly 12 months for this precise moment. Here goes nothing... YOU KNOW I CAN'T GRAB YOUR GHOST CHIPS! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsFlVWqWHlA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsFlVWqWHlA For a year now, I've been internalizing this really complicated situation in my head. Wondering why this phrase has stuck with me so very much. Why? What does it all mean? It all makes perfect sense now. Pack it up folks. The Internet is over. Take me now, God. It is done.
itcmcgrath 14y ago
I moved from a place where it was illegal (NSW, Australia) to somewhere it wasn't (Colorado, USA). People still did it in Australia, but no where near as much as here. My biggest peeve is actually because of the people who are holding the phone to their ear. I have almost been sideswiped a stupid amount of times because someone is holding the phone/hand/arm up on the left side and decides to change lanes without looking, while talking and with body position blocking vision. It makes me angry that mine and others lives are less important than delaying their conversation.
- pyrotechnick 14y ago
  This is one of the only "nanny state" laws I find reasonable. People genuinely need saving from themselves.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    It is not really a nanny state law when it exist to protect other people from you. It just should be all distracted driving in general. Oh the shit I saw when I took my driving lessons, and right in front of a car clearly marked too.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - noonespecial 14y ago
    I don't consider it a nanny state law. Its not you I want saved from you, its me. Even with insurance, most people are not prepared (or often required) to bear the full cost of the damage they can cause with their cars. Because they cannot shoulder the responsibility, they should not be allowed to take the risk. They are risking other peoples' property (and lives) for their own stupid behavior. We don't let people drive as fast as they want or ignore stop signs for the same reason.
    - pyrotechnick 14y ago
ryandvm 14y ago
I'm just glad that the same advances in high performance computing that make smartphones possible will also bring us self-driving cars. Want to text while you drive? Fine, but you must own a car that has self-driving capability. Problem solved.
- adampopescu 14y ago
  can't wait for that to happen.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  Self-driving cars can't get here fast enough. How can we get them here faster? Google folks: There are people out there willing to work for free to help self-driving cars get here faster. Make a way for them to be able to contribute (I volunteer to help push legislation in the 47 states that don't allow self-driving cars yet).
  - ryangallen 14y ago
    Right there with you, I think about this everyday I drive to and from work. It is absolutely insane to have millions of people "in control" of their cars. Where do I sign up?
adampopescu 14y ago
We need to have cars that WON'T LET US use our outside tech devices when we're in the driver's seat. That kind of design functionality would HELP this problem. Also, in-dash GPS and the like, it's hurting more than it's helping IMO. 10 years ago, no one had this stuff. Look at a map people, or better yet, know where you're going!!!
- gknoy 14y ago
  I'm not sure that advising someone to look at a map is much better -- a paper map obscures a lot more of the road, and looking at it to figure out not just where the hell you are but also where you are trying to go seems a bit worse than an on-dash GPS that shows the former, and hopefully has been configured with the latter.
- mirkules 14y ago
  Absolutely not. These "restrictive" vehicle systems are horrible, for the simple fact that they don't distinguish between driver and passenger. Being in some more modern vehicles which do exactly as you say is infuriating when you have to ask your passenger -- instead of pulling up the GPS turn-by-turn on the large in-dash screen -- to instead pull out the iPhone 5 because the nav won't let you set a waypoint while you're in "drive". Artificially restricting controls only results in a user bypassing those controls in some way, which could do more harm than good (e.g. forcing you use your phone instead).
majormajor 14y ago
When it comes to distracted driving, is talking to a passenger in the car any different than talking on the phone on a hands-free device? Is there something weird going on in the brain when it comes to having a conversation with someone not physically present?
- jsyedidia 14y ago
  Yes. The passenger in the car sitting next to you senses when something tricky is happening with the driving and shuts up or otherwise calls your attention to the danger. Someone conversing with you on the phone doesn't. Kids talking to you from the back seat are also a potentially more dangerous distraction for the same reason.
- kgermino 14y ago
  I have seen (although I can't remember where so this might not be worth much) that the freequency clipping cell phones do for compression can make it harder for you to processes what you're being told on a phone. Put a better way, cell carriers clip the upper and lower ranges of the audible spectrum. While your voice won't get completely cut, sometimes you lose information the brain uses to process language. Without this, you need to work harder to understand what you're being told than you would if you were talking to someone next to you.
- redler 14y ago
  One theory is that, yes, something different is going on in the brain when speaking on a phone, as opposed to speaking with a passenger. "It may be that talking on the phone generates mental images that conflict with the spatial processing needed for safe driving. Eye-tracking studies show that while drivers continually look side to side, cellphone users tend to stare straight ahead. "They may also be distracted to the point that their engaged brains no longer process much of the information that falls on their retinas, which leads to slower reaction times and other driving problems. -- New York Times, "A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group Urges Phone Ban for Drivers" [0] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html?_r=0 Edit: clarity.
leoedin 14y ago
Teenagers send and receive an average of 167 messages a day? Is that not a huge number? I suppose we had MSN when I was a teenager. I'm not sure if I'm patient enough to send hundreds of text messages on a touchscreen phone.
- itcmcgrath 14y ago
  I send/receive about that in emails a day. On top of that you have IM's, Twitter, Facebook, Phone calls, etc. In short, that number is not surprising.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  A lot of those are "k", "ya", "5 min".
k3n 14y ago
If I had a dollar for every soccer-mom in an SUV or minivan that was oblivious to the world as she cut me off, I'd be rich. Not to mention that even when my life isn't jeopardized, these same yappers are the ones most likely to hold up traffic (like by going -5 in the "passing" lane for miles on end) or something else equally moronic.
enraged_camel 14y ago
Maybe it's just me, but when I drive, I turn off all distractions: radio off, iPhone on DND mode and not playing any music, GPS voice off, and passengers hushed. I want to be able to not just see the other vehicles on the road, but also hear them. I've avoided a couple of accidents that way. This is impossible to do with music blasting or other people in the car talking loudly.
marknutter 14y ago
Terrible drivers are terrible at driving while talking on a cell phone. Go figure.
tehwebguy 14y ago
I predict that self-driving cars will take care of this before we come up with another realistic solution. (Posted from FL, which has no distracted driving state laws)
- ableal 14y ago
  "Pick up the phone and let the car drive." Actually, it will not be an option. Once it is possible, it will be mandatory.

39 points by adampopescu 14y ago

Maybe I'm just anti-social, but I love that I can use driving as an excuse to ignore calls & texts, will envoke it every chance I get, and still haven't adopted a hands-free solution so I can continue doing so.

gte910h 14y ago
Hands free solutions do not help according to studies. That's the ironic thing about many laws requiring them. http://www.baldwinandlyons.com/publications/quill/2011/04/inattention_blindness.html http://www.baldwinandlyons.com/publications/quill/2011/04/in...
- flexxaeon 14y ago
  excellent - another weapon in my arsenal of excuses. thanks!
- clarkevans 14y ago
  I like the direction of his broader category, "distracted driving". For years I always thought that "baby on board" was pretentious and meant that you should be careful, because if you cause an accident you might kill a baby. Now I'm older, wiser (and have a child now). What "Baby on Board" means is that the driver is seriously distracted. edit: I'm being sarcastic; I don't see any difference between a properly implemented hands-free environment and having a passenger: you must still keep your eyes on the road, your ears listening for interesting events, and your mind tracking all the vehicles and pedestrians near you.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    >I like the direction of his broader category, "distracted driving". I understand the sentiment, but that's too broad for me. I don't like giving the police unlimited discretion in determining whether I have broken the law or not. Tell me what I can and can't do, and I'll act accordingly.
    - ensignavenger 14y ago
      Police never have unlimited discretion in determining whether or not you have violated the law- that is for a judge and/or jury to determine. Still, I agree with the sentiment- I think we need to focus on the sociology of distracted driving, rather than the criminology.
      - tatsuke95 14y ago
        >"Police never have unlimited discretion in determining whether or not you have violated the law- that is for a judge and/or jury to determine." Maybe it's up to the judge/jury to determine if you broke the law, but this certainly gives police the right to pull you over because you looked "distracted". That's too ambiguous for me.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Then maybe we should ban babies on cars. It isn't fair to the rest of society that he have to risk our lives because you decied to have a child.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    There's a huge difference between hands-free and having a passenger, and the statistics show it. Driving with a passenger is safer than driving alone. Driving while talking on your cell phone, even with a hands-free device is much more dangerous. Nobody knows exactly why, but there are many plausible theories. When you have a passenger, the passenger is generally also paying to the environment -- in essence they're helping you pay attention.
- k3n 14y ago
  In the very least, hopefully the hands-free devices will act to discriminate against those without the setup. So while the problem isn't totally solved, it at least requires extra effort to remain legal.
heed 14y ago
I believe the term you're looking for is "asocial." Anti-social implies that you're sociopathic.
- flexxaeon 14y ago
  Depends on the nature of the phone call or text message...
R_Edward 14y ago
I used to text and drive all the time, and scorned the laws that said I mustn't. I've never caused an accident, never strayed out of my lane, or even close to the edge, never slowed way down, never changed lanes nor turned without appropriate safety precautions first... but I've stopped. Not because of the law, or my wife's pleading, not even because I want to set a good example to my kids. But because a) I realized I was, in fact, subdividing my attention and giving too little to the more complex activity, b) I'm not nearly important enough that anyone needs an instant response to a text to me, and c) it gives me a built-in excuse to enjoy alone-time while I'm driving. Now I do occasionally sneak a look at my incoming texts or emails when I'm waiting at a red light. That's illegal too, and I don't really understand why. Maybe because it's too tempting to continue the activity after the light turns green. What really chaps my hide though, are the cops who will write you a ticket for sneaking a glance at your phone, while they have a freakin' laptop on a shelf right there in the front seat, for looking up hot women's license plates while they're tailing them.

CodeMage 14y ago

I once worked with a guy who rigged his phone and car with a gizmo that would allow him to send texts that he would input using just one button that he wouldn't even have to look at: he would just use it to tap out Morse code and when he was finished, the message would be sent via SMS. I don't remember whether he could listen to inbound messages in Morse code, but it would be a logical conclusion. I imagine it's still somewhat distracting, but a lot less than actually looking at the phone.

bryanlarsen 14y ago
The biggest problem with texting or talking while driving is that your attention is focused on texting or talking rather than on the road. Adding the additional cognitive load of interpreting Morse code may make things worse rather than better.
- gknoy 14y ago
  If he were a HAM operator, or someone with experience doing Morse Code for a living, I expect it would probably be as nearly automatic as typing would be for you or me.
  - jff 14y ago
    Ham is not an acronym.
adampopescu 14y ago
who is this magician and what is his secret formula? sounds too good to be true, but still distracting.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Any smart phone should be able to do it. You just have to convert touch timing into morse code.
  - 14y ago

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Sadly, the people that can't talk and drive can't do anything and drive well simultaneously. Further, they're likely unaware of their shitty driving and will replace "Being on the phone" with something else: eating, makeup, futzing with the radio, otherwise not paying attention to what they're doing. How about: people pay the hell attention to the roader. As both a driver and biker, I'd be DEAD several times in the last two months and I'm in a medium sized city in the Midwest, it's not like there's an excuse for the times when bad drivers have been a risk to me.

Dirlewanger 14y ago

That one visceral UK anti-texting PSA needs to be mandatory viewing like, everywhere.

bryanlarsen 14y ago
This the one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E I couldn't make it through to the end.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  It is just special effects and emotional bullshit (well okay, that is most movies). Nice touch that the people who help are all men and the driver was female.
- lancewiggs 14y ago
  New Zealand did similar advertisements a few years back, setting up car crashes with actors and not telling the emergency services that they were not real. But this recent campaign about telling your mates not to drink and drive is far more clever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRzlAiLr2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRzlAiLr2M The logic is that changing behaviour relies on helping people understand what is 'cool' and what is not cool with their friends. As anti-tobacco campaigns or anti-drug campaigns should also know, this is far more effective than the scare tactics.
  - pyrotechnick 14y ago
    I've been patiently waiting exactly 12 months for this precise moment. Here goes nothing... YOU KNOW I CAN'T GRAB YOUR GHOST CHIPS! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsFlVWqWHlA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsFlVWqWHlA For a year now, I've been internalizing this really complicated situation in my head. Wondering why this phrase has stuck with me so very much. Why? What does it all mean? It all makes perfect sense now. Pack it up folks. The Internet is over. Take me now, God. It is done.

itcmcgrath 14y ago

I moved from a place where it was illegal (NSW, Australia) to somewhere it wasn't (Colorado, USA). People still did it in Australia, but no where near as much as here. My biggest peeve is actually because of the people who are holding the phone to their ear. I have almost been sideswiped a stupid amount of times because someone is holding the phone/hand/arm up on the left side and decides to change lanes without looking, while talking and with body position blocking vision. It makes me angry that mine and others lives are less important than delaying their conversation.

pyrotechnick 14y ago
This is one of the only "nanny state" laws I find reasonable. People genuinely need saving from themselves.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  It is not really a nanny state law when it exist to protect other people from you. It just should be all distracted driving in general. Oh the shit I saw when I took my driving lessons, and right in front of a car clearly marked too.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- noonespecial 14y ago
  I don't consider it a nanny state law. Its not you I want saved from you, its me. Even with insurance, most people are not prepared (or often required) to bear the full cost of the damage they can cause with their cars. Because they cannot shoulder the responsibility, they should not be allowed to take the risk. They are risking other peoples' property (and lives) for their own stupid behavior. We don't let people drive as fast as they want or ignore stop signs for the same reason.
  - pyrotechnick 14y ago

ryandvm 14y ago

I'm just glad that the same advances in high performance computing that make smartphones possible will also bring us self-driving cars. Want to text while you drive? Fine, but you must own a car that has self-driving capability. Problem solved.

adampopescu 14y ago
can't wait for that to happen.
toomuchtodo 14y ago
Self-driving cars can't get here fast enough. How can we get them here faster? Google folks: There are people out there willing to work for free to help self-driving cars get here faster. Make a way for them to be able to contribute (I volunteer to help push legislation in the 47 states that don't allow self-driving cars yet).
- ryangallen 14y ago
  Right there with you, I think about this everyday I drive to and from work. It is absolutely insane to have millions of people "in control" of their cars. Where do I sign up?

adampopescu 14y ago

We need to have cars that WON'T LET US use our outside tech devices when we're in the driver's seat. That kind of design functionality would HELP this problem. Also, in-dash GPS and the like, it's hurting more than it's helping IMO. 10 years ago, no one had this stuff. Look at a map people, or better yet, know where you're going!!!

gknoy 14y ago
I'm not sure that advising someone to look at a map is much better -- a paper map obscures a lot more of the road, and looking at it to figure out not just where the hell you are but also where you are trying to go seems a bit worse than an on-dash GPS that shows the former, and hopefully has been configured with the latter.
mirkules 14y ago
Absolutely not. These "restrictive" vehicle systems are horrible, for the simple fact that they don't distinguish between driver and passenger. Being in some more modern vehicles which do exactly as you say is infuriating when you have to ask your passenger -- instead of pulling up the GPS turn-by-turn on the large in-dash screen -- to instead pull out the iPhone 5 because the nav won't let you set a waypoint while you're in "drive". Artificially restricting controls only results in a user bypassing those controls in some way, which could do more harm than good (e.g. forcing you use your phone instead).

majormajor 14y ago

When it comes to distracted driving, is talking to a passenger in the car any different than talking on the phone on a hands-free device? Is there something weird going on in the brain when it comes to having a conversation with someone not physically present?

jsyedidia 14y ago
Yes. The passenger in the car sitting next to you senses when something tricky is happening with the driving and shuts up or otherwise calls your attention to the danger. Someone conversing with you on the phone doesn't. Kids talking to you from the back seat are also a potentially more dangerous distraction for the same reason.
kgermino 14y ago
I have seen (although I can't remember where so this might not be worth much) that the freequency clipping cell phones do for compression can make it harder for you to processes what you're being told on a phone. Put a better way, cell carriers clip the upper and lower ranges of the audible spectrum. While your voice won't get completely cut, sometimes you lose information the brain uses to process language. Without this, you need to work harder to understand what you're being told than you would if you were talking to someone next to you.
redler 14y ago
One theory is that, yes, something different is going on in the brain when speaking on a phone, as opposed to speaking with a passenger. "It may be that talking on the phone generates mental images that conflict with the spatial processing needed for safe driving. Eye-tracking studies show that while drivers continually look side to side, cellphone users tend to stare straight ahead. "They may also be distracted to the point that their engaged brains no longer process much of the information that falls on their retinas, which leads to slower reaction times and other driving problems. -- New York Times, "A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group Urges Phone Ban for Drivers" [0] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html?_r=0 Edit: clarity.

leoedin 14y ago

Teenagers send and receive an average of 167 messages a day? Is that not a huge number? I suppose we had MSN when I was a teenager. I'm not sure if I'm patient enough to send hundreds of text messages on a touchscreen phone.

itcmcgrath 14y ago
I send/receive about that in emails a day. On top of that you have IM's, Twitter, Facebook, Phone calls, etc. In short, that number is not surprising.
ceejayoz 14y ago
A lot of those are "k", "ya", "5 min".

k3n 14y ago

If I had a dollar for every soccer-mom in an SUV or minivan that was oblivious to the world as she cut me off, I'd be rich. Not to mention that even when my life isn't jeopardized, these same yappers are the ones most likely to hold up traffic (like by going -5 in the "passing" lane for miles on end) or something else equally moronic.

enraged_camel 14y ago

Maybe it's just me, but when I drive, I turn off all distractions: radio off, iPhone on DND mode and not playing any music, GPS voice off, and passengers hushed. I want to be able to not just see the other vehicles on the road, but also hear them. I've avoided a couple of accidents that way. This is impossible to do with music blasting or other people in the car talking loudly.

marknutter 14y ago

Terrible drivers are terrible at driving while talking on a cell phone. Go figure.

tehwebguy 14y ago

I predict that self-driving cars will take care of this before we come up with another realistic solution. (Posted from FL, which has no distracted driving state laws)

ableal 14y ago
"Pick up the phone and let the car drive." Actually, it will not be an option. Once it is possible, it will be mandatory.