Disable texting at high speed

Posted:
in iPhone edited September 2015

Using the GPS on smart phones, at 20mphs and higher, disable the ability to send and receive texts. This is not an app. This has to be done in manufacturing. This is so simple. I don't know if this can be done. If so, a lot of lives will be saved!

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    You know, I’ve heard this proposed before, but then how do you distinguish from the driver and passengers? If it’s a toggle, no one will use it, and if it’s hard-coded, either no one will buy the devices or you’ll be causing more damage than you prevent.

     

    You can’t legislate intelligence. You can only legislate punishment for stupidity and programs designed explicitly to MOCK and DERIDE those who would be stupid.

     

    Enough of this touchy-feely tolerance malarkey. Some behaviors are, universally, objectively incorrect. It is our charge to prevent these behaviors by whatever means necessary.

     

    Embarrassment is an extraordinary teacher. You always remember embarrassing moments and you always seek to not repeat them. Make fools of those who would text while driving or who support said behavior.

     

    Apple can only do so much, and they’ve really done everything they can. Cars are helping now with built-in charging ports (so that you can more easily access Siri while driving) and by tying more of their cars’ features directly into the phone’s operation. It’s still on the people themselves to stop the madness.

  • Reply 2 of 22

    Thanks for responding to my question. Can't tell if you responded with sarcasm and I just missed it. Seat belts are the law. Motorcycle helmets are the law. All due to our lack of "intelligence" to choose to save lives. Why not have the cell phone manufacturers apply this to all smart phones since we can't choose to do the safe thing while driving. And, by the way, I understand passengers will be disabled as well. Not a terrible inconvenience since it can still be used as a phone and because the driver could not text, they will have a better chance to reach their destination. Just a thought. I know everyone will be screaming the government is too involved in our private lives as it is. Maybe so, but, at least I would know my two daughters will have a higher percentage of coming home safe every night. I'm not trying to be nasty. Just that the number of lives that are being lost on the highways are high enough. If texting could be removed as a distraction, that number would drop. Might even be your's or my innocent family member that gets home safe.

     

    Just saw last night on the news that smart phones are going to become FM radios.The feature is already in the phones. I feel pretty certain that the smart phone manufacturers would have the capability to disable sending and receiving texts above 20mph.

    .

  • Reply 3 of 22
    qvakqvak Posts: 86member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kibbles304 View Post

     

    Using the GPS on smart phones, at 20mphs and higher, disable the ability to send and receive texts. This is not an app. This has to be done in manufacturing. This is so simple. I don't know if this can be done. If so, a lot of lives will be saved!


     

    More nanny state bullshit.

     

    Texting.... why contain it? Let the masses text while driving if they are stupid enough to do so. Survival of the fittest.

     

    And if enough victims are also injured or killed as collateral damage of some dumb bimbo texting, guess what, the social pressure not to text while driving will increase, and most people being herd animals, will conform.

     

    It's feel good "think of the children" tier legislation that makes living in the anglosphere nauseating.

  • Reply 4 of 22
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Yes, let manufacturers work with users instead of forcing well-meaning, but ultimately useless laws down more throats.

    We now have so many damn laws I assume at any given moment all Americans are breaking a law of some kind.

    What is the indicator of what is a bad law? Everyone ignores it!
  • Reply 5 of 22
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by kibbles304 View Post

    Why not have the cell phone manufacturers apply this to all smart phones since we can't choose to do the safe thing while driving.

     

    Again, they’ve done just about everything they can. Car manufacturers can commit to making zero vehicles without push-button Siri support, however.

     

    Not a terrible inconvenience since it can still be used as a phone


     

    Then you’ll have the driver talking on the phone and nothing will have been improved, only inconvenienced.

     

    …at least I would know my two daughters will have a higher percentage of coming home safe every night.


     

    It is the job of your education and proper parenting to ensure this. Not a government or company.

  • Reply 6 of 22
    Again, they’ve done just about everything they can. Car manufacturers can commit to making zero vehicles without push-button Siri support, however.

    Then you’ll have the driver talking on the phone and nothing will have been improved, only inconvenienced.

    It is the job of your education and proper parenting to ensure this. Not a government or company.
  • Reply 7 of 22
    Not sure what car manufacturers would have to do with it. I was speaking of smart phone manufacturing disabling sending and receiving texts at 20mph and above. That's all I want. Several states have laws on the books against talking and driving. Also, my two daughters have families of their own and they were raised just fine. I just want to help with making the roads safer for all.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by kibbles304 View Post

    Not sure what car manufacturers would have to do with it.

     

    Managing the function of a car without voice commands is as dangerous as a separate telephony device. Making better use of the telephony device is also on the car manufacturers.

     

    I was speaking of smart phone manufacturing disabling sending and receiving texts at 20mph and above. That's all I want.




    And you’re never going to get it.

     

    I just want to help with making the roads safer for all.


     

    Then the best thing to do would be to demand others raise their children just as well.

  • Reply 9 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kibbles304 View Post

     

    Using the GPS on smart phones, at 20mphs and higher, disable the ability to send and receive texts. This is not an app. This has to be done in manufacturing. This is so simple. I don't know if this can be done. If so, a lot of lives will be saved!




    Oh, you bet your GPS it can be done! 

     

    Have you heard the story of the little boy who went riding on his bike, and saw a truck that got stuck under a bridge because it was too tall? The truck driver got out and surveyed the damage. Then he got back in, and called 911. The little boy came back later that day to find that the fire department had arrived and was preparing to cut the top off the truck. "Stop!" cried the little boy. "Why don't you just let the air out of the tires?"

     

    Sometimes the solution can be so blindingly obvious it takes someone with little or no experience. A random person standing on the side of the road yelling for the fire department to let the air out of the tires on a truck that lodged itself under a bridge. I am impressed. 

  • Reply 10 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    ....

    We now have so many damn laws I assume at any given moment all Americans are breaking a law of some kind.

    What's the point of anything?!

     

    (?°?°??? ???

     

    Are all Americans breathing? Isn't that against the law? Huh? Tell me!

    Are you breaking the law? What about the law agains murder? How long ago did you steal my wallet? All these questions and more, but mostly, what?

     

    What is your point? The laws are here to protect people. We have a lot of buffoons in office right now, but overall most of our laws are pretty fair. What laws do you speak of? At least we are allowed to leave the country whenever we please! We can say whatever we want without being thrown in prison for treason! 

  • Reply 11 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    Quote:


     Not sure what car manufacturers would have to do with it.


     

    Managing the function of a car without voice commands is as dangerous as a separate telephony device. Making better use of the telephony device is also on the car manufacturers.

     

    Quote:


     I was speaking of smart phone manufacturing disabling sending and receiving texts at 20mph and above. That's all I want.




    And you’re never going to get it.

    Quote:


     I just want to help with making the roads safer for all.


    Then the best thing to do would be to demand others raise their children just as well.


     

    Ok, let me dissect this line by line.

     

    Quote:

    Managing the function of a car without voice commands is as dangerous as a separate telephony device. Making better use of the telephony device is also on the car manufacturers.


     

    Ok, but that's not what this is about. That is a valid point. Fooling around with your radio presets while driving is in my opinion just as dangerous as texting while driving. But this is about phones. Not cars. Also, some car makers that use digital touch screens for the dashboard controls do have them shut off while the car is in motion. So it is an issue that is being solved, but that is not what this is about.

     

    Quote:


    Quote:

     I was speaking of smart phone manufacturing disabling sending and receiving texts at 20mph and above. That's all I want.



    And you’re never going to get it.


     

    You know this because you have the ability to peer deep into the future.

     

    *

     

    What?

    [shuffles papers as if looking for something]

     

    By the way, it would be better to have the OS do it instead of having it hard coded into the design of the phone. This way, Apple would have more control if they want to make tweaks on the algorithm. Also, it's less expensive to do it that way. Just sayin'.

     

    Quote: 


    Quote:
     I just want to help with making the roads safer for all.



     

    Shame on you! 

     

    Quote:

    Then the best thing to do would be to demand others raise their children just as well.


    [blank stare]

     

    Just like the "do-gooders" that get parents in trouble for leaving their 12 year old kid in the cars in 68 degree weather while they make a deposit on their checking account. Evil parents. Parents must just hate their kids. You just have to parent other people's kids for them. Yeah. That's it.

     

    All this is to say, I'm not saying that there will definitely be a feature like this in the future (I can't see the future), I am saying that it actually seems reasonable. And you have no real evidence to the contrary... Sooooooo, yeah. 

  • Reply 12 of 22
    Originally Posted by Apple Head View Post

    You know this because you have the ability to peer deep into the future.


     

    Yes. I do. This will never, ever happen, ever, anywhere, for the reasons already stated.

     

    By the way, it would be better to have the OS do it instead of having it hard coded into the design of the phone.


     

    So then people will either not buy the phone or hack around it, rendering it useless.

     

    Just like the "do-gooders" that get parents in trouble for leaving their 12 year old kid in the cars in 68 degree weather while they make a deposit on their checking account. Evil parents. Parents must just hate their kids. You just have to parent other people's kids for them. Yeah. That's it.



     

    When you have a reply that isn’t a fallacy, feel free to post it.

     

    I am saying that it actually seems reasonable.


     

    And you’ve been shown why it doesn’t.

     

    And you have no real evidence to the contrary...


     

    Pretending there hasn’t been evidence presented does not mean the evidence was not presented.

     

    Sooooooo, yeah.  


     

    I’d additionally suggest you wait until you’re of age to reply again.

  • Reply 13 of 22

    So....

    If I'm a passenger riding the bus, I can't text?

    If I'm a passenger riding a train, I can't text?

    If I'm a passenger on a ferry boat, I can't text?

    If I'm a passenger on an airplane, I can't text?

    If I'm a passenger in a limousine, I can't text?

    When I'm riding the Super Shuttle from my house to the airport, I can't text?

     

    Your idea, while well-intentioned, is poorly thought out.

  • Reply 14 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Yes. I do. This will never, ever happen, ever, anywhere, for the reasons already stated.

     


    The problem is that the reasons are invalid. If the Neg has anymore reasons, let him bring them forward now. 

     

    Quote:

    So then people will either not buy the phone or hack around it, rendering it useless.


    Say, do you know what Apple is good at? Encryption technology. The fact is, you are right. If someone really wanted to get around that, he could get his hands dirty with code or jailbreak his device. But who the heck wants to do that? Let's have a show of hands. How many of you think you would jailbreak your device in order to get around a feature like that? Ok, I've counted seven. Wait, are you raising your hand, way there in the back? Yes? Ok, make that eight. Here is a story. When Steve Jobs wanted to make iTunes, one of the problems was that he needed to find a way to keep people from illegally copying songs from their friends devices onto theirs. But there was no easy way to do this. So instead, when someone tried to copy a song onto his device, a message showed up from iTunes that said that if they followed through with it, it would erase all the other music off their device. Did some people go through with it and break the law? Yes. Did Apple get in trouble for it? No. 

     

    Quote:


     When you have a reply that isn’t a fallacy, feel free to post it.


     

    Do you even know what a fallacy is? If you can't tell me what kind of fallacy it is, then you are committing a logical fallacy, known as appeal to ignorance. 

     

    Quote:


     And you’ve been shown why it doesn’t.


    Were? Oh, do you mean here?

    Quote:


     You know, I’ve heard this proposed before, but then how do you distinguish from the driver and passengers? If it’s a toggle, no one will use it, and if it’s hard-coded, either no one will buy the devices or you’ll be causing more damage than you prevent.


    Well, actually, this is a good point. How does it distinguish from the passenger or the driver? Well, I was thinking (a rather dangerous pastime) and I realized something. What about CarPlay? Apple already has all the main auto makers on board, and as Tim Cook said in what I think was WWDC 15 (it may have been the March event, I can't remember) CarPlay knows when you get into your car. It wouldn't be perfect, but if you didn't have CarPlay, the feature would be off. If you set up CarPlay, it would automatically turn on. Technology keeps getting better and better. Just because you can't imagine how it would work, doesn't mean Apple can't. If you are actually reading this, here's a treat. On the other hand, Apple might never do this and I might start looking like Gene Munster and his TV :err:

     

    Anyway, back to your newer post:

    Quote:


     Pretending there hasn’t been evidence presented does not mean the evidence was not presented.


    Wow. That's my line! I always say that to my buddies at work when they say something dumb. Anyway, I already directed that evidence, so I will save my breath.

     

    Quote:


     I’d additionally suggest you wait until you’re of age to reply again.


    Well, I am afraid I have to point out that you just committed the Ad Hominem fallacy. (Attacking someone instead of their argument)

     

    Back to one of your earlier posts:

    Quote:


     Apple can only do so much, and they’ve really done everything they can. Cars are helping now with built-in charging ports (so that you can more easily access Siri while driving) and by tying more of their cars’ features directly into the phone’s operation. It’s still on the people themselves to stop the madness.


    Amen. I agree with you except for the part were you say "they've really done everything they can." There is always something else you can do. It's up to them to do it. However, your last statement is more true than anything on this page thus far. There is always an action YOU can take. And, to everyone, you is someone. My point being, everyone can do their part. 

  • Reply 15 of 22
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Apple Head View Post

    But who the heck wants to do that? Let's have a show of hands. How many of you think you would jailbreak your device in order to get around a feature like that?

     

    Me and everyone else on Earth with a cell phone.

     
    So instead, when someone tried to copy a song onto his device, a message showed up from iTunes that said that if they followed through with it, it would erase all the other music off their device. Did some people go through with it and break the law? Yes. Did Apple get in trouble for it? No. 

     

    Did this happen? No. Why would make up absolute nonsense?

     
    If you can't tell me what kind of fallacy it is, then you are committing a logical fallacy, known as appeal to ignorance. 

     

    First, that isn’t what an appeal to ignorance is. Second, your statement had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

     
    if you didnt have CarPlay, the feature would be off. If you set up CarPlay, it would automatically turn on. 

     

    Good thing that buses and trains have CarPlay and that multiple devices can connect to CarPlay at once and… oh, wait.

     

    I already directed that evidence, so I will save my breath. 


     

    Pretending that you invalidated evidence does not mean that you actually did it.

    Quote:

    Well, I am afraid I have to point out that you just committed the Ad Hominem fallacy. 


     

    And yet you’ve no refutation for it. Said style of writing speaks to immaturity.

     
    There is always something else you can do.

     

    And this thing right here isn’t one of those things.

     
    It's up to them to do it.

     

    And they never will.

  • Reply 16 of 22
    http://www.wikiguga.com/topic/446869264de4838f7440b2b28af9ff00Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Me and everyone else on Earth with a cell phone.


    Speak for yourself, man.

     

     




    Did this happen? No. Why would make up absolute nonsense?



    http://www.wikiguga.com/topic/446869264de4838f7440b2b28af9ff00

     

    The original intent message discussed in the above article was as my post suggested. I read this in a Steve Jobs biography (one of the many I own, and I am unable to track down exactly which one it is:\).

     

    Quote:


     First, that isn’t what an appeal to ignorance is. Second, your statement had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.


    Uh, yes it is. An Appeal to ignorance (also known as an argument from ignorance) is when you say something isn't true because you can't prove it false. You said:

    Quote:


     When you have a reply that isn’t a fallacy, feel free to post it.


    The implication there is that I can't prove what I said right, so it must be wrong. "When you have something to say that is right, let me know. Because otherwise you are wrong." 

     

    And my statement had as much to do with the discussion as your statement about how my comment on people parenting other people's kids is a fallacy. 

     

    Quote:


     Good thing that buses and trains have CarPlay and that multiple devices can connect to CarPlay at once and… oh, wait.


    Hold on... I think you misunderstood what I meant. Let me try again (efficiency in words has never been my strength):

     

    If you had CarPlay installed in your car, your iPhone would shut messages off unless accessed thru Siri. If you didn't have CarPlay installed, it wouldn't do anything. Of course, only people with CarPlay would be able to use this feature, but Apple wants CarPlay in every car. Plus, they already have every major car brand on board. CarPlay would know when you get in the car, and then turn off texting when the GPS senses movement.

     

    Quote:


     Pretending that you invalidated evidence does not mean that you actually did it.


    Ok, enough with the references to the evidence supplied! I did deconstruct the reasoning provided by @KingOfSomewhereHot and yourself. If there is other  evidence against this, please quote yourself, or just write it again! 

     

    Quote:


     And yet you’ve no refutation for it.


    Oh, you mean I have no refutation for your insult suggesting I am under age? Well, sue me. 

    Quote:


     Said style of writing speaks to immaturity.


    Ad hominem!

     

    Quote:


     And this thing right here isn’t one of those things.


    Well, QED. 

     

    Quote:


     And they never will.


    Well, that's awfully pessimistic. 

     

    Ok, look. So far all you have offered me is references to mythical evidence, insults to my maturity, and little quips that don't really add anything to the conversation other than a little laugh. (By the way, do you read The Macalope? You have it down pat!)

  • Reply 17 of 22
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Apple Head View Post

    Speak for yourself, man.

     

    Everyone else in the thread agrees. Go ask people on the street; they’ll laugh at you for suggesting it.

     

    Oh, that! Yeah, that regards licensing for the playback of purchased content.

     

    "When you have something to say that is right, let me know. Because otherwise you are wrong." 


     

    And, as you have already been proven wrong, it was not a fallacy.

     

    ...CarPlay...


     


     

    Okay, that’s a little better. In this case, the responsibility, again, is on the auto manufacturers to adopt CarPlay. Apple has already done everything it can do.

     

    If there is other evidence against this, please quote yourself, or just write it again! 


     


     

    Right up there in the thread.

     

    *tinkly riff* Home of pirates, drunks, and whores: Ad hominem! *tinkly riff*

     

    Well, that's awfully pessimistic. 


     


     

    Not really. Desiring a dystopian future in which your every move is monitored and banned is pessimistic. Optimistic is suggesting that people ought to educate themselves and not engage in behavior because they recognize the dangers inherent therein.

     

    So far all you have offered me is references to mythical evidence


     


     

    Read the thread, then.

     
    ...insults to my maturity...

     

    Responses to the exhibition of a partial lack thereof.

     

    ...little quips that don’t really add anything to the conversation other than a little laugh.


     

    When you have something worth more than a quip, have at it.

     

    Apple isn’t going to limit your use based on motion. This is only confusing to statists.

  • Reply 18 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple Head View Post

     

     

     

    Ok, enough with the references to the evidence supplied! I did deconstruct the reasoning provided by @KingOfSomewhereHot and yourself. If there is other  evidence against this, please quote yourself, or just write it again! 


     

    No you didn't!... your model would still shut off my phone while on a bus/train/plane/car even when I'm merely a passenger.  

     

    Carplay:  1.  It would require a separate screen and carplay plug/receiver at every seat (standing?) on a bus/train/plane.  - 2.  Adoption has been slow at best... there are only a handful of car models (literally... count your fingers) where it's available now... most manufacturers are still touting several years downtime road before widespread availability... assuming that Apple doesn't change the hardware requirements between now and then as an upgraded version. (you know... like changing the plug.)

     

    So again, how are you going to differentiate between the driver and everyone else in a given vehicle? ... or... how do you know I (the driver of a car) haven't given MY phone to my daughter to have HER send a message to someone for me, because I'm busy driving.  (a frequent occurrence in my car.)

     

    I (and probably your other detractors) aren't saying the intent behind your idea is bad, we're just pointing out that this particular method of implementing that intent is too flawed for acceptance.

     

    I'll also support YOU against TS in that I would NOT jailbreak my phone to get around this, so his statement that "everyone except you" would do so is now shown to be false. ;)  (I would, however, buy a different model/brand phone that was not limited in this fashion... assuming the sale of such items was not banned by some draconian government mandate.)

  • Reply 19 of 22
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Managing the function of a car without voice commands is as dangerous as a separate telephony device. Making better use of the telephony device is also on the car manufacturers.


    And you’re never going to get it.

    Then the best thing to do would be to demand others raise their children just as well.

    It's been said that the average American may be breaking at least 3 laws a day:

    http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

    You've heard of "The Rent is Too Damn High Guy"? Well, we're all "There Are Too Many Damn Laws" Americans.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    I'll also support YOU against TS in that I would NOT jailbreak my phone to get around this, so his statement that "everyone except you" would do so is now shown to be false. ;) ndate.)

    :D

    Quote:


     (I would, however, buy a different model/brand phone that was not limited in this fashion... assuming the sale of such items was not banned by some draconian government mandate.)


    :no:

     

    Actually you also didn't understand what I said.... 

     

    Quote:

    If you had CarPlay installed in your car, your iPhone would shut messages off unless accessed thru Siri. If you didn't have CarPlay installed, it wouldn't do anything. Of course, only people with CarPlay would be able to use this feature, but Apple wants CarPlay in every car. Plus, they already have every major car brand on board. CarPlay would know when you get in the car, and then turn off texting when the GPS senses movement. 


    (BTW, this is all I ask for when I say show me what evidence you are referring to.)

     

    Quote:

    Everyone else in the thread agrees. Go ask people on the street; they’ll laugh at you for suggesting it

    I will forgive you...

     

    Quote:


     And, as you have already been proven wrong, it was not a fallacy.


    And here we go... More of the references to mythical evidence.

     

    How hard is it to just quote yourself? 

     

    Quote:


     In this case, the responsibility, again, is on the auto manufacturers to adopt CarPlay. Apple has already done everything it can do.


    Ok, that is true. Auto manufacturers do have to adopt it. But until then it can be a CarPlay only feature. Keep in mind that Apple already has every major car brand on board. Also, I was thinking maybe it could be a toggle in restrictions. If parents don't want their kids driving and texting at the same time, they can just turn it on there. Of course like I said, it would only work when you are in the car with CarPlay.

     

    Quote:


     Right up there in the thread.


    [sound of head smacking keyboard]

     

    Quote from myself:

    And here we go... More of the references to mythical evidence.

     

    How hard is it to just quote yourself? 


     

    Quote:

    *tinkly riff* Home of pirates, drunks, and whores: Ad hominem! *tinkly riff


    Ok, that's actually kinda funny. But you still haven't read the wikipedia article that I linked to apparently.

     

    Quote:


     Optimistic is suggesting that people ought to educate themselves and not engage in behavior because they recognize the dangers inherent therein.


    I feel compelled to remind you that my quote was in response to you saying:

    Quote:


     And they never will.


    So, I stand by my case.

     

    Quote:


     Read the thread, then.


    [Bam! Bam! Bam!]

     

    Quote:


     Responses to the exhibition of a partial lack thereof.


    Let me point out that insulting people about how mature they are is immature. (Whoops!)

     

    Quote:


     Apple isn’t going to limit your use based on motion. 


    Fair enough. How about I say "Apple isn't going to make a car because I wouldn't like that." I wouldn't like Apple to make a car, so this one is a little close to my chest. 

Sign In or Register to comment.