US regulators ask smartphone makers to implement function-limited 'driver mode'

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    barthrh said:
    entropys said:
    If you are a passenger in a moving car a GPS solution won't be desirable. Similarly if it is the passenger's phone hooking into the car system via Bluetooth it isn't desirable.  This is not straightforward.
    No kidding! Any attempt to fully restrict functionality based on those factors will hugely diminish the value of a phone, particularly to passenger who probably wants to send a few messages while on the ride. Bluetooth as a detection protocol is stupid; passengers use (my kids like to control the music) it or control panel -> off and you have full access. You can argue that this is personal responsibility and it is... so make car mode voluntary like airplane mode. Anyhow, all speculation for now and I will bet that this will more likely be leveraged by Apple to say "we agree, get all manufacturers to implement CarPlay".
    Most likely way to accomplish it is through some short range RFID, sort of like you can't turn the car on unless the key fob is close to the driver.
    ration al
  • Reply 22 of 40
    I guess you've never lived in Memphis.  Where you see weird, dangerous and illegal stuff and want to call the police, sheriff, ambulance, or fire department.  Where you can't stop and make a phone call in most of the city.  NOW, the USA Federal Government will stop phone users from helping when help is needed.  This not only sucks and is stupid but it is STUPID.
    redraider11
  • Reply 23 of 40
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,322member
    It's about fricking time!
    Based on what? Bullshit statistics made up by politicians?


    This is the problem with government, they always will create a crisis to give themselves more power, and enslave the people bit by bit.  And the gullible, like you will cheer your own enslavement.
    The accident stats come from the National Safety Council who claim 1 in 4 auto accidents can be attributed at least in part to texting/phone calls while driving. They are not a government agency. 
    edited November 2016 baconstanganantksundaramjony0
  • Reply 24 of 40
    I see both sides to this problem. But so can an iPhone. An iPhone has two cameras, and if it "sees" a steering wheel in either camera, while at the same time "seeing motion" via its GPS, it could go into "Driver Mode."
    baconstangration alpalominejony0
  • Reply 25 of 40
    Yes, exactly what we need, more regulations and more government buerocrats to suck up tax dollars to make sure the regulations are being followed. You can't stop texting and driving any more than you can't stop drinking and driving without infringing on personal freedoms. The best way to cut down on this is to just pull over people for erratic and distracted  driving. Whether it's swerving because you've had too much to drink, yelling at the kids in the back seat, or texting and driving it's all the same! Not saying you have to get a ticket every time, but we need to stop putting so much emphasis on only drunk driving or holding the cell phone up to your ear. 
    mike1
  • Reply 26 of 40
     You know, this already exists, it is called CarPlay. *rolls eyes*
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 40
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,749member
    michael_c said:
    So, how will they determine a person is driving?  My car won't allow access to certain functionality when car is moving, not even for the passenger.  Will the same apply for passengers using cell phones?
    I understand and appreciate the problem, not confident we'll get a good solution.
    Will have to be a combination of GPS, motion sensing and other technologies to determine that a person is moving than a human being is able to move over a specified period of time; such as 20mph over a one minute period. Of course this would also activate the 'vehicle- function while riding a fast bike. Can't rely on bluetooth connectivity because a person must pair the phone to bluetooth and (like my vehicle) most vehicles are not equipped with such technology. Besides, it's the handheld phone that is most dangerous (2 hands on the wheel, please, /s) followed by other interactions with the phone (texting, talking, viewing web sites, etc). Can't rely on the presence of a physical connector because the connection may not be to a vehicle UNLESS the head unit sends a specific ID signal to the phone upon connection; my vehicle does not have such a capability nor can it be ungraded to do so.

    So, any solution the phone manufacturers come up with will only apply to owners of the most modern phone OS and own a more modern vehicle with upgraded tech. But it will be a beginning and people will get the new tech through phone upgrades and vehicle attrition.
    So, your idea would also limit use on a moving commuter train or bus. Keep trying.
  • Reply 28 of 40

    Driver's Ed 101:  Driving is a privilege not a right!


    For starters:
    1. Put the driver's seat in Safe Driver Mode when the engine is on/running and/or the car is in motion
    2. Safe Driver Mode limits driver's seat occupant's phone use to safe activities. 


    How to implement:
    1. most late/current model cars have a connector to the car's computer on the driver's side.  An adapter could be added to this connector to emit a signal that defines  a cone of safety * of, say four feet, around the driver's seat, e.g. Safe Driver Mode.
    2. without the adapter -- the car won't run [1]
    3. with the adapter -- the driver's seat occupant's phone use is limited to safe activities [2]
    4. passenger phones are not affected
    5. mandatory on new cars/phones
    6. attrition and/or regulation will make all cars safe in a short time

    [1] implemented by car manufacturers
    [2] implemented by phone manufacturers -- basically an OS change.

    * Apologies to the TV Series: Get Smart.

    edited November 2016 baconstangration alMacPropalominejony0hmm
  • Reply 29 of 40
    It's about fricking time!
    Based on what? Bullshit statistics made up by politicians?


    This is the problem with government, they always will create a crisis to give themselves more power, and enslave the people bit by bit.  And the gullible, like you will cheer your own enslavement.
    I have no problem at all with the fact that you increase the risk of killing/maiming yourself. Zero. I do have a whole lot of problems, however, with the increase in the risk that you'll end up killing/maiming others. Imposing an externality like that would be pretty scummy on your -- anybody's -- part, no?

    Btw, I assume you think that vaccinations, public health investments to prevent disease transmission and contagion, sex education... no, heck, education in civics, requiring smoke detectors, requiring airbags, requiring people to follow traffic signs and drive on the right (if in the US), steps to prevent riots/public disorder/crime, having a judicial system -- to name just a few (I could go on all day) -- are also "bullshit" meant to "enslave" us?
    edited November 2016 602warrenbaconstanggatorguyration alpalominelorin schultzhmm
  • Reply 30 of 40

    gatorguy said:
    brakken said:
    How does the phone differentiate between a driver and a passenger?
    If you're connecting to the vehicle's bluetooth system it won't. 
    You could have sensors in seats, like you do with airbags.
    baconstanggatorguyration alpalomine
  • Reply 31 of 40
    brakken said:
    How does the phone differentiate between a driver and a passenger?
    Simple solution would be any mobile device connected to the cars bluetooth/infotainment center (Typically just the driver in most cases) would be immediately put on 'limited' mode. Most phones now can recognize the difference between a cars bluetooth and say your Apple watch bluetooth - which is how Maps now shows you approximately where you parked when you leave your vehicle. So recognizing you're *probably* the driver of a car wouldn't be too difficult.
    baconstang
  • Reply 32 of 40
    hike1272 said:
    I guess you've never lived in Memphis.  Where you see weird, dangerous and illegal stuff and want to call the police, sheriff, ambulance, or fire department.  Where you can't stop and make a phone call in most of the city.  NOW, the USA Federal Government will stop phone users from helping when help is needed.  This not only sucks and is stupid but it is STUPID.
    I'm pretty sure one could dial 911 under any circumstances.
    ration al
  • Reply 33 of 40
    They can just use the oh-so-effective Pokemon Go solution.  When they sense that you're moving too fast, it pops up a dialog box with a button that says "I am a passenger."  One simple lie later and you're back in business.
    watto_cobradasanman69
  • Reply 34 of 40
    It's about fricking time!
    Based on what? Bullshit statistics made up by politicians?


    This is the problem with government, they always will create a crisis to give themselves more power, and enslave the people bit by bit.  And the gullible, like you will cheer your own enslavement.
    I have no problem at all with the fact that you increase the risk of killing/maiming yourself. Zero. I do have a whole lot of problems, however, with the increase in the risk that you'll end up killing/maiming others. Imposing an externality like that would be pretty scummy on your -- anybody's -- part, no?

    Btw, I assume you think that vaccinations, public health investments to prevent disease transmission and contagion, sex education... no, heck, education in civics, requiring smoke detectors, requiring airbags, requiring people to follow traffic signs and drive on the right (if in the US), steps to prevent riots/public disorder/crime, having a judicial system -- to name just a few (I could go on all day) -- are also "bullshit" meant to "enslave" us?

    "MOAR GUVMINT TO SAVE US!"  What's bullshit is your list of unrelated crap and sentiment overlay.  Haven't you learned anything from numerous historical examples of over-Puritanical beliefs and policies?  Including the 'sex education' kinda gave your prudish POV away.  Lots of money spent and time wasted there, and the result is most STDs rates increasing... so MOAR GUVMINT?

    Driving recklessly and crashing your car into things and people is already illegal.  Why do you need more justifications for things that already have laws?  Using a cell phone, radio, holding a conversation, scratching your nuts, someone else's nuts, etc. are all perfectly safe behaviors that can be safely implemented in cars at the appropriate times. 

    Government already controls the whole process, from the issuing of licenses to every tangible vector of how and where you vector your vehicle.  The belief that government will someday discover the perfect formula for driving safety, is called faith and it's not good to mix government with that religion or any other.

    Hold the existing government employees at DMVs to higher competence with regards to licensing, make the penalty for any reckless driving (regardless of why) less desirable, and remove department/agency profit motive for focusing almost exclusively speeding tickets and make them focus on a wider range of driving behavior infractions.  

    Here in California, start with general lane placement and merging, all things already in traffic laws.  Lax enforcement of these has lead to lots of problems beyond cell phone usage while driving.  If the government isn't policing existing, reasonable laws, adding more nebulous laws into root causes and nebulous behavioral garbage won't help.
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 35 of 40
    More people die each year due to the FDA banning safe drugs that they could use to get better, than due to all auto accidents combined.

    These scumbags are not your friends, and they don't care how many people they murder with their regulations.
    Yes! Regulations are the problem!
    Bureaucrats want to slowly kill us with their "speed limits", traffic rules, inspections and health and safety laws.
    I'm tired of the government telling me what is safe to eat.
    ration albaconstangpalominejony0
  • Reply 36 of 40
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,346member
    Why not keep it simple? Just get the police to fine people for driving and texting/talking on a hand held phone! 
  • Reply 37 of 40
    602warren said:
    brakken said:
    How does the phone differentiate between a driver and a passenger?
    Simple solution would be any mobile device connected to the cars bluetooth/infotainment center (Typically just the driver in most cases) would be immediately put on 'limited' mode. Most phones now can recognize the difference between a cars bluetooth and say your Apple watch bluetooth - which is how Maps now shows you approximately where you parked when you leave your vehicle. So recognizing you're *probably* the driver of a car wouldn't be too difficult.
    And what if there are 4-5 phones in the car? Do they all connect to the Bluetooth of the car?
  • Reply 38 of 40

    Driver's Ed 101:  Driving is a privilege not a right!


    For starters:
    1. Put the driver's seat in Safe Driver Mode when the engine is on/running and/or the car is in motion
    2. Safe Driver Mode limits driver's seat occupant's phone use to safe activities. 


    How to implement:
    1. most late/current model cars have a connector to the car's computer on the driver's side.  An adapter could be added to this connector to emit a signal that defines  a cone of safety * of, say four feet, around the driver's seat, e.g. Safe Driver Mode.
    2. without the adapter -- the car won't run [1]
    3. with the adapter -- the driver's seat occupant's phone use is limited to safe activities [2]
    4. passenger phones are not affected
    5. mandatory on new cars/phones
    6. attrition and/or regulation will make all cars safe in a short time

    [1] implemented by car manufacturers
    [2] implemented by phone manufacturers -- basically an OS change.

    * Apologies to the TV Series: Get Smart.

    I don't think there's an easy, satisfying solution to this.
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 39 of 40
    michael_c said:
    So, how will they determine a person is driving?  My car won't allow access to certain functionality when car is moving, not even for the passenger.  Will the same apply for passengers using cell phones?
    I understand and appreciate the problem, not confident we'll get a good solution.


    This.

    What if a passenger wants to use my phone, for instance to add a stop in the GPS?  Or respond to a text that I can't while driving?

    I'll welcome a solution that allows for these scenarios, and work hard to circumvent one that doesn't.

  • Reply 40 of 40
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,322member
    michael_c said:
    So, how will they determine a person is driving?  My car won't allow access to certain functionality when car is moving, not even for the passenger.  Will the same apply for passengers using cell phones?
    I understand and appreciate the problem, not confident we'll get a good solution.


    This.

    What if a passenger wants to use my phone, for instance to add a stop in the GPS?  Or respond to a text that I can't while driving?

    I'll welcome a solution that allows for these scenarios, and work hard to circumvent one that doesn't.

    You can add a stop now on your phone without resorting to tapping entries on the screen. Big deal if your passenger needs to use voice entry (if it's your phone being used for navigation) in order to comply with DOT guidelines. Or you could just do so yourself. Sounds like an issue that TBH won't really be one in actual use. 
    edited November 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.