Log in

View Full Version : Bluetooth May Avoid Cell Phone Ban in Cars


Ed Hansberry
10-30-2002, 03:00 PM
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2362085.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2362085.stm</a><br /><br />Legislaters in the UK are looking at banning cell phone useage in cars completely. Car makers are taking huge steps to avoid that though. "The car industry has a lengthy development cycle with even the smallest design modification taking years to appear on the showroom floor," Nick Nunn, Managing Director of TDK Systems said. "In the case of Bluetooth, however, all of the big players are moving mountains to make it happen by next year." Source: Gracar

FredMurphy
10-30-2002, 03:52 PM
&lt;rant>I can't believe using a phone while driving hasn't been banned already. I cycle a lot and regularly have idiots on the phone almost kill me (and often drive on unaware)&lt;/rant>

If Bluetooth can help great, but I'm guessing that until all cars are made with an integrated bluetooth hands-free kit few people will bother to use it.

Fred

Simon Miller
10-30-2002, 04:33 PM
Well, from reading the BBC News article, it would seem the case, but theregister.co.uk is reporting that this won't neccessarily be the case.

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/27808.html which raises some very interesting points.

T-Will
10-30-2002, 04:34 PM
&lt;rant>I can't believe the government is trying to control what we can and can't do while driving. What's next, a ban on conservative talk radio because it's too *radical* and distracting while driving?! Doesn't New York already have a ban already, and the great People's Republic of California will probably be the next state to adopt this because we're soooo *progressive* and must set an example for the rest of the U.S.&lt;/rant>

-Tim

dochall
10-30-2002, 05:24 PM
&lt;rant>I can't believe the government is trying to control what we can and can't do while driving. What's next, a ban on conservative talk radio because it's too *radical* and distracting while driving?! Doesn't New York already have a ban already, and the great People's Republic of California will probably be the next state to adopt this because we're soooo *progressive* and must set an example for the rest of the U.S.&lt;/rant>

-Tim

Well unless our Tone and Dubiya are far closer than we thought I don't think that British legislation is enforcable in the US, well not since 1776 or so.

Fred - Do you seriously think the idiots in cars will actually be any better? They'll just be doing their hair, nails, picking their teeth.

sub_tex
10-30-2002, 05:26 PM
Doesn't New York already have a ban already

Sure does.

So what you see a lot of now is people that seem to be talking to themselves because you can't see the headset/earpiece they're using.

don dre
10-30-2002, 05:57 PM
Well unless our Tone and Dubiya are far closer than we thought I don't think that British legislation is enforcable in the US, well not since 1776 or so.

Oddly enough it was because of an overbearing British government.

I agree, banning cell phones won;t get idiots off the road. For myself, I always use a headset and try to keep conversations short, esp in busy areas. Viva la Revolucion!

Will T Smith
10-30-2002, 05:57 PM
Banning cell phone use in automobiles is a waste of time.

You might as well ban eating in the car, or trying to tend to an infant while driving.

The truth is that these things CAN be done safely and responsibly. Some folks choose to abandon their primary task (same operation of a vehicle) for whatever else they're doing.

Instead of banning specific activities, legislatures should pass a law against "distracted driving". That is, just plain NOT PAYING attention. Give troppers broad authority to enforce the law and unmarked vehicles to sneak up on dangerous drivers.

Highway Patrol enforcement is way too overfocused on speed. With today's technology, that would best be left to automated systems that takes high resolution pictures (with MPEG clips to discern THE violator). Just bill their license plate and don't waste the officers time. Highway patrol should focus on VERY unsafe habits such like weaving, passing at excessive speeds, merging without signaling, tailgating, road rage, chasing, racing, passing on the right, and other such behaviors that cause most of the problems on the road.

don dre
10-30-2002, 06:27 PM
As usual, there is no need for any new legislation. There are already charges out there...reckless driving. I wonder though, can you be pulled over for day dreaming? "Sorry hon, I got another absent mindedness fins today." I agree abotu speeding though I think cameras are nothing but revenue makers for states and have little to do with safety. I was recently pulled over going 77 mph in a 55 zone. was I unsafe? no. But I was breaking the law. It's arbitrary. Are you mroe ready to drink at a bar at 21 than you were three months prior?

Ed Hansberry
10-30-2002, 06:52 PM
As usual, there is no need for any new legislation. There are already charges out there...reckless driving.
That is only after you screw up and ruin someone's day, month, life or kill them.

The legislation in question is to prevent that, not punish you after the fact.

don dre
10-30-2002, 06:56 PM
is it not possible to pull someone over for being out of control? true you are only charged afterwards but as will be the case with any new legislation. why does someone have ot be hurt to be charged?? I know people who have been charged with reckless driving without actually being in an accident. this law isn't going to eliminate reckless driving anyways. Cell phones aren't even the biggest cause of traffic deaths every eyar.

Ed Hansberry
10-30-2002, 07:07 PM
is it not possible to pull someone over for being out of control? true you are only charged afterwards but as will be the case with any new legislation. why does someone have ot be hurt to be charged??
They don't - you can pull someone over for careless driving, but what usually happens is the cell phone user is either driving slower, causing traffic issues and possible hazards, or you get the lane drift or the big swerve. If a cop sees that they can ticket them. If they hit someone first, then the cop just gets to witness it and it is too late.

If the cell phone use is illegal in the first place, the cop can nab them anytime it is up to their ear. Again, preventative before any driving hazard has occurred.

Think of it this way - drunk driving. No one really cares if you are drunk and 100% in control of the vehicle. The point is you can be fined for doing nothing wrong other than the dangerous activity of drinking and driving. Same deal hear. Talking on the cell and driving is dangerous. You should be fined for that is what this is saying, well before anything bad happens.

Brad Adrian
10-30-2002, 07:23 PM
Doesn't New York already have a ban already
So what you see a lot of now is people that seem to be talking to themselves because you can't see the headset/earpiece they're using.
No, I've seen TONS of people in New York talking to themselves, and it's had nothing to do with headsets...

innersky
10-30-2002, 07:27 PM
It doesn't matter if you use a headset/carkit or not. It's equally dangerous. There have been studies that proved this.
It doesn't matter if you hold the headset in your hand or not.
The difference with talking to someone in the car is that when you do this, the person next to you will see when there's a hazardous situation, and will stop talking. When on the phone the one you're talking to won't stop talking and you have to focus on 2 things at the same time.

Sooner or later this will be banned.

scottmag
10-30-2002, 08:47 PM
It doesn't matter if you use a headset/carkit or not. It's equally dangerous. There have been studies that proved this.


I've heard of studies demonstrating that it is the act of having a conversation that is the distraction, not necessarily the use of the phone. I agreed with that and thought the NY state ban on using a phone in your hand only (i.e., without some sort of hands free setup) was ridiculous. But then I used my phone in the car with an earbud and found that it was much less distracting than holding it in my hand.

There is definitely something more distracting about holding your arm up near your head, partially blocking your view and limiting your ability to control the wheel. But some of these tests scanned brainwaves to show the areas of the brain active in intense conversation. You can't tell me that people in heated discussions with someone in the car are paying more attention to the road than I am while having a trivial conversation on the phone ("What's up?" "Nothing, what's up with you?" "Nothing." "Cool.").

I bet I could find studies showing that women turn to face each other when talking in a car. And that they talk significantly more than men. Maybe we should ... wait, where am I going with this? Oh, never mind.

Scott

Duncan
10-30-2002, 09:06 PM
Those people who whine about their individual liberties being infringed can (IMHO) go take a running jump! In the UK using a mobile while driving IS illegal unless using a handsfree... that didn't prevent some moron (believe me I'm holding back...) running down one of my students a few years ago - while talking on a handsfree set! The driver got a fine and a temporary ban - the student lost the use of his legs for life.

So - you'll forgive me if I support the proposed legislation completely and wholeheartedly. I bundle the use of mobile phones while driving with speeding, drink driving and illegal parking and have nothing but contempt for anyone who wishes to argue for the right to do any of them!

It is about time that drivers woke up to the fact that they drive large, heavy, fast moving, death machines that require concentration and absolute responsibility at all times - talking on the phone can always wait until the car is at a stop and those who feel they can't wait 'til they stop, or pull over, will always come across as a bit pathetic...

jmulder
10-30-2002, 09:56 PM
Those people who whine about their individual liberties being infringed can (IMHO) go take a running jump! In the UK using a mobile while driving IS illegal unless using a handsfree... that didn't prevent some moron (believe me I'm holding back...) running down one of my students a few years ago - while talking on a handsfree set! The driver got a fine and a temporary ban - the student lost the use of his legs for life.

I'm always upset when something like this happens. I assume that the driver wasn't actively chasing your student, as the term 'running down' implies, but was inattentive in his driving. IMO, the driver, regardless of whether he was on the phone or not, got off way too easy.

So - you'll forgive me if I support the proposed legislation completely and wholeheartedly. I bundle the use of mobile phones while driving with speeding, drink driving and illegal parking and have nothing but contempt for anyone who wishes to argue for the right to do any of them!

First of all, don't hold all supporters of cell phone use in contempt simply because of their views. I don't despise all Muslims or Jews because I am a Christian.

The difference here is that UK lawmakers have decided that handsfree phone operation is not against the law, and until they do, drivers do have the right to use their cell phones with a handsfree kit. I'll quote another post I wrote several months ago about jamming cell phones at mass.

It is my RIGHT to have a phone with me at all times.
It is my RESPONSIBILITY to turn it off or set it on vibrate when it is inappropriate to have it ring.
It is my RESPONSIBILITY (both to others around me and the caller) not to answer if it is inappropriate or unsafe to talk.
I even consider it my RESPONSIBILITY to pull over and call 911 if I have witnessed an injury accident.

The post can be found at:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=729&start=34

and the whole discussion can be found at:

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=729

In the meantime, if you disagree with the law allowing handsfree cell phone use, please write your representative (I'm unsure about UK lawmaking bodies, so please forgive me if I have used an incorrect term), and let them know how you feel. Laws are supposed to reflect society's beliefs, and the more people that let their lawmakers know what they think, the more accurately laws will reflect those beliefs.

-Jim

innersky
10-30-2002, 10:49 PM
But then I used my phone in the car with an earbud and found that it was much less distracting than holding it in my hand.

Scott

But it's still more distracting then not using a phone in the car...

If this could save one life, it will be worth it.

Duncan
10-30-2002, 10:55 PM
First of all, don't hold all supporters of cell phone use in contempt simply because of their views. I don't despise all Muslims or Jews because I am a Christian.

Oh come on! Not only did I not say that (I was very specific in aiming my contempt at use of mobile phones in a very stupid manner in a particular circumstance) but it is totally absurd (not to say trivialising - both ways) to compare my position with disagreements over matters of faith!

It is my RIGHT to have a phone with me at all times.

NO!!! It is your privilege and your good fortune and nothing more. I teach a course on human rights and would never make the mistake of calling something as trivial as having a mobile phone with me a 'right'. BTW - the law allows me to do many things that are still morally repugnant - just because something is legal does not make it right.

Banning mobile phone use in cars? If my MP votes for this I'll buy him dinner - never mind writing to him...

Ed Hansberry
10-30-2002, 10:58 PM
But it's still more distracting then not using a phone in the car...

If this could save one life, it will be worth it.
Somethign should be done, but not at any cost. Ban driving altogether and look at all the lives that could be saved. We spend an increasing amount of time traveling an getting work done is important, just as moving cargo or comutting is.

Handsfree? Absolutely. Outright ban? You'll have as many deaths from morons not paying attention regardless of what has their attention, be it a cell phone or a big mac.

Duncan
10-30-2002, 11:17 PM
Ed,

Banning driving is pointless - of course. I don't ask for anything other than the recognition that there are some tasks that mcust be done in exclusion of other tasks. I don't expect drivers to engage in tasks other than driving any more than I expect surgeons to play video games while operating. Why is it that the latter is clearly seen by all as silly but the former is accepted as something that should be allowed?!

FWIW - eating and drinking while driving are grounds for being prosecuted for 'driving without due care and attention' in the UK - and quite right too!

I'm with innersky - one life saved is enough to justify the change in law.

Wuss912
10-30-2002, 11:37 PM
Ed,

Banning driving is pointless - of course.


I'm with innersky - one life saved is enough to justify the change in law.

aren't both of these statements exclusive to the other?
wouldn't banning driving save much more than just one life?
(not to mention the enviroment)

Ed Hansberry
10-30-2002, 11:48 PM
(not to mention the enviroment)
Controlling cow farting will do more to save the environment than banning driving. We need less gasseous hay it would seem. :roll:

innersky
10-31-2002, 01:03 AM
But it's still more distracting then not using a phone in the car...

If this could save one life, it will be worth it.
Somethign should be done, but not at any cost. Ban driving altogether and look at all the lives that could be saved. We spend an increasing amount of time traveling an getting work done is important, just as moving cargo or comutting is.

Handsfree? Absolutely. Outright ban? You'll have as many deaths from morons not paying attention regardless of what has their attention, be it a cell phone or a big mac.

Did I mention banning driving?????
While you're at it, why don't you support drinking and driving?
No one tells you that you can't use your cell phone anymore, just not combined with driving, because that combination makes driving a lot more dangerous.
Come on Ed, your cell phone can't be that important.

Duncan
10-31-2002, 01:14 AM
Wuss912,

As I said - banning driving isn't the point (though a lot fewer cars on the road is both and achievable and desirable). People need to get from A to B (as much as cows need to fart). However - if people took driving as seriously as they should (treating it as a necessity and not a means of covering up their feelings of personal inadequacy), no speeding (or taking any other traffic rules as if they were optional), drinking, using mobiles, or any of the other dumb things that people do when they should be concentrating on driving alone, then the death rate from driving would be reduced to pure accidental cause alone.

However - if someone causes a death because they were distracted through engagement in another task while driving (e.g. speaking on the phone) then that cannot be seen as an accidental death. Personally I believe those who cause deaths or injuries through driving while on drugs, affected by drink, speeding or on a mobile (and no - there are no 'grades' of offence here) should be sentenced to time in prison as surely as if they had caused those deaths or injuries by pulling the trigger of a gun... and I don't believe anyone can point to one good reason why that should not be the case...

It is sad however that so many in our societies need a law to be passed to tell them to do what they should automatically know to do in the first place...

Wuss912
10-31-2002, 02:01 AM
Wuss912,

As I said - banning driving isn't the point (though a lot fewer cars on the road is both and achievable and desirable). People need to get from A to B (as much as cows need to fart). However - if people took driving as seriously as they should (treating it as a necessity and not a means of covering up their feelings of personal inadequacy), no speeding (or taking any other traffic rules as if they were optional), drinking, using mobiles, or any of the other dumb things that people do when they should be concentrating on driving alone, then the death rate from driving would be reduced to pure accidental cause alone.

However - if someone causes a death because they were distracted through engagement in another task while driving (e.g. speaking on the phone) then that cannot be seen as an accidental death. Personally I believe those who cause deaths or injuries through driving while on drugs, affected by drink, speeding or on a mobile (and no - there are no 'grades' of offence here) should be sentenced to time in prison as surely as if they had caused those deaths or injuries by pulling the trigger of a gun...

Well by that logic Why stop there? you should go to prison if you have any accident that could be prevented. (Blowout on the freeway; powersteering failing; break failure) they are all accidents that could have been prevented by a little simple maintaince.

i mean how long is it until it is mandated by law that car radios must not be changed while a the car is in motion(or even running) isnt that another distraction?

Where do all of these laws stop isn't it already illegal to drive with reckless abandon? then why do we need more laws if the ones we have are sufficent dosent that just mean we need better enforcement of pre exsisting laws?

jmulder
10-31-2002, 02:21 AM
First of all, don't hold all supporters of cell phone use in contempt simply because of their views. I don't despise all Muslims or Jews because I am a Christian.

Oh come on! Not only did I not say that (I was very specific in aiming my contempt at use of mobile phones in a very stupid manner in a particular circumstance) but it is totally absurd (not to say trivialising - both ways) to compare my position with disagreements over matters of faith!

It is my RIGHT to have a phone with me at all times.

NO!!! It is your privilege and your good fortune and nothing more. I teach a course on human rights and would never make the mistake of calling something as trivial as having a mobile phone with me a 'right'. BTW - the law allows me to do many things that are still morally repugnant - just because something is legal does not make it right.

Banning mobile phone use in cars? If my MP votes for this I'll buy him dinner - never mind writing to him...


...just going to bite my tongue and wish Duncan the best...

-Jim

Rob Alexander
10-31-2002, 02:34 AM
i mean how long is it until it is mandated by law that car radios must not be changed while a the car is in motion(or even running) isnt that another distraction?

Changing the car radio?!!! Wuss, in Duncan's world, you don't get a car radio!

scottmag
10-31-2002, 04:45 PM
Banning mobile phone use in cars? If my MP votes for this I'll buy him dinner - never mind writing to him...

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, mobile phone usage has been "linked to at least 14 deaths" in Britain since 1994.

I think your MP might have more important things to concentrate on if we put that into perspective.



But then I used my phone in the car with an earbud and found that it was much less distracting than holding it in my hand.
Scott

But it's still more distracting then not using a phone in the car...

If this could save one life, it will be worth it.

The saving one life argument becomes absurd when you expand it logically. A handful of people are killed on roller coasters each year. Ban 'em. Certainly at least one person dies from an accident with a toaster. Banning toasters would save at least one life. So by your logic, let's do it.

The only data I could find on mobile phone related fatalities is a direct correlation to 300 deaths last year in the US. That's out of 42,000 automobile fatalities. Of course, it's impossible to determine a single risk factor that is responsible for an accident. It is almost always a combination of things or under the broad category of driver distraction. These accidents have been occurring for many years before the widespread use of hand-held mobile phones in automobiles. Yet I never heard such passionate debate about banning the eating of fast food, changing of radio stations or CDs, speaking with passengers, or handing a child a toy while driving.

But facts won't persuade many of you to reconsider your support of a ban, because you are looking at only one side of the cost/benefit analysis. Admittedly it is a grim task to assign a value to human life or determine how many fatalities are acceptable in permitting something. But we cannot simply ban everything that has any degree of danger under the argument that it "could save one life." My point is that mobile phone usage in automobiles has a measurable benefit to society that must be considered.

According to the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration my statistical risk of death by automobile crash is 1.5% per million miles driven. Actually that would be cut in half due to my always wearing a seatbelt. So when my wife calls me and asks me to pick something up on my way home that means one less trip I have to take and a corresponding reduction in my total miles driven. If I am running late to meet someone I could call and inform them rather than feel pressured to hurry and drive in a less safe manner.

I bet lives are actually saved by witnesses to accidents being able to call for help immediately rather than driving on to the next pay phone. Or by drivers reporting something unsafe, or dangerous, to authorities.

Don't assume that mobile phone usage in cars just equates to self-absorbed yuppies. And don't think that everything that the media sensationalize should evoke new legislative restrictions on the behavior of careful law-abiding citizens.

Scott

innersky
10-31-2002, 05:15 PM
scott, don't take everything literally...
and it's not about banning cell phones either.

Do you use a toaster in your car :?:

scottmag
10-31-2002, 06:14 PM
scott, don't take everything literally...
and it's not about banning cell phones either.

Do you use a toaster in your car :?:

Not since the incident while using a waffle iron in my lap.

8O

Scott

Duncan
10-31-2002, 07:17 PM
you should go to prison if you have any accident that could be prevented. (Blowout on the freeway; powersteering failing; break failure) they are all accidents that could have been prevented by a little simple maintaince.

Yes... if it is shown that you failed to maintain your car properly you should be punished severely for resultant accidents - surely you don't think people should get away with that? Genuine accidents or problems that can't be forseen are another matter of course...

Changing the car radio?!!! Wuss, in Duncan's world, you don't get a car radio!

Rob - I'm talking about something that distracts and takes away concentration from driving. If that describes your car radio you need to get a simpler radio mate...

Scott,

Your argument is so cold and lacking in humanity you should be ashamed of yourself. FWIW accidents due to mobile phone use are now third in the rankings after drink driving and joy riding (in the UK at least).

If you can't see the difference between using a mobile while diving and riding a rollercoaster or using a toaster... you haven't followed my point at all. My argument cannot be reduced to a 'ban things that can kill you' psuedo logic as you try to suggest - perhaps I could invite you to a meeting of Headway (most of whose members have lost people to careless drivers) where they can explain the difference to you... Putting aside your repugnant, morally objectionable use of cost/benefit analysis as applied to human life (let's see how your analysis works when your child, wife, parent is mown down by someone carrying out business on their phone when they should be thinking about their driving) your assertion that:
My point is that mobile phone usage in automobiles has a measurable benefit to society that must be considered. has got to be a joke surely! Name me ONE circumstance when there can be a measurable benefit to using a mobile in a moving car that is worth even one lost human life? The examples you use are irrelevant. An extra journey to pick up shopping is a lot less dangerous than one journey where you are distracted by taking a mobile call. If you feel pressured to drive less safely because you are late - your priorities are messed up.

As for reporting accidents - no-one is arguing that mobile phones should not be allowed to be used in cars - moving cars are the no-no - you can always pull over to report an accident. Plus, of course, there are always exceptions allowed in law - times when breaking a law is acceptable and right to save human life.

Don't assume that mobile phone usage in cars just equates to self-absorbed yuppies.

Never said it, never implied it. I insist my wife has a mobile in her car at all times (for safety). There are plenty of times when mobile use is safe in a car - when stopped, parked, broken down, in a traffic jam etc. - but I stick by my unshakeable conviction, gained through experience and hearing way too many one-to-one personal horror stories (not ROSPA statistics or cost/benefit analyses), that those who use mobiles while driving deserve contempt for doing so...

Wuss912
10-31-2002, 09:30 PM
There are plenty of times when mobile use is safe in a car - when stopped, parked, broken down, in a traffic jam etc.

according to the proposed law cell phone use when the engine is running would be illegal even by your own standards this is un reasonable.

in another note rain and bad weather can be distracting while one is driving mabey the UK should outlaw those too (might improve torousim too)

ThePanda
10-04-2003, 04:06 AM
&lt;rant>I can't believe the government is trying to control what we can and can't do while driving. What's next, a ban on conservative talk radio because it's too *radical* and distracting while driving?! Doesn't New York already have a ban already, and the great People's Republic of California will probably be the next state to adopt this because we're soooo *progressive* and must set an example for the rest of the U.S.&lt;/rant>

-Tim

driving is dangerous when you're on the phone and especially when you're fumbling around looking for the phone. they're not taking away your rights, they're protecting other people's right to live.

Wuss912
10-04-2003, 04:10 AM
driving is dangerous when you're on the phone and especially when you're fumbling around looking for the phone. they're not taking away your rights, they're protecting other people's right to live.

well by that logic suv's should be outlawed ..