This is the knee-jerk reaction de jure of our age.<p>New York has made it a very serious moving violation (5 points, equivalent to speeding 40 mph over the limit) to have any electronic device in your hand. It's ok to use devices affixed to the dashboard, including GPS devices. If your a teenaged driver, you automatically get a 60 day suspension.<p>Using technical controls to govern behavior is bad policy. There's a reason why jamming radio signals is a serious crime -- it's too easy to make unanticipated mistakes.
In my opinion, the problem is that drivers, by and large, are absolutely <i>terrible</i> at driving. They're so bad at driving that they have no idea <i>how bad</i> they are at it.<p>We're a nation of self-promoting, self-obsessed, angry narcissists, incompetently sitting behind the wheel of multi-ton, wheeled death machines. We have a single license tier for a ridiculous variety of vehicle shapes and sizes. We have zero ongoing driver education requirements, and only require retesting if sufficient complaints are received (when's the last time that's even happened?) or we reach sufficient age.<p>Demand better driver training. Stop engaging in inane behavior when you have greater responsibilities. Demand that others in your life do so as well.
I honestly wonder whether mobile technology has contributed to this problem or whether it has just finally allowed us to measure "distracted driving" accidents accurately.
The article mentions that even people who agree that texting is a bad idea find that they have trouble stopping themselves from doing it.<p>These folks could limit distraction from incoming texts and calls by turning on "Do Not Disturb" mode.<p>I'd actually appreciate a mobile OS feature which lets through incoming text messages and auto-replies saying "I'm driving right now, I'll get back to you when I safely can."<p>Is this problem largely going to go away as voice control of phones (and car integration) get better?
Just a commentary on the bigger picture: I strongly disagree with the notion that talking on the phone while driving is always bad (yes, I know, some people are particularly bad at it and shouldn't do it, but those people probably shouldn't be talking at all or...in many cases...driving at all.)<p>But texting while driving is <i>really bad</i>. I've done it far too much, and every single time I note how totally distracted, worse-performing, and basically crappy I am at the driving part (and I am a good driver when not distracted).<p>Why did I do it? Because for better or for worse, some people have gotten so used to this world of instant communications that if you don't reply quickly enough, they actually get concerned -- "why aren't you answering me? is everything ok?"<p>So my solution is twofold: 1. I've stopped responding to people so quickly. And if they protest, I explain: I was driving. Chill out. I'm fine. Everything is fine. 2. And if it really can't wait, I just make a call. "I'm driving - don't want to text. What's up?"<p>We really, really, really shouldn't be texting or writing emails while driving. It's bad news for everyone.
> People know they shouldn’t text and drive.<p>People know they shouldn't drink and drive either. But the legal BAC limit is not zero. We tolerate a small amount of increased risk to be able to enjoy a beer or glass of wine at a restaurant.<p>So why this absolutist, zero tolerance approach for texting? Are there no legitimate reasons for texting while driving?<p>I found out my wife was in labor via a text message that I received while driving. When I reached a stoplight, I sent back omw (expands to On my way!) and drove home instead.<p>Another time, I was returning home from a long road trip, and hit bad stop-and-go traffic. After sitting in it for fifteen minutes, I texted my wife to let her know I would be delayed.<p>Obviously texting while joyriding at 70 mph is stupid and ought to be illegal, but I don't see the harm in sending one or two quick messages while stopped or moving at very low speeds. We should have a balanced approach to texting while driving, like we do with alcohol.
To me this is akin to limiting all vehicles to under 70 MPH to ensure no one speeds recklessly.<p>The solution is to train our drivers better and start actually pulling people over for using phones while driving, not cripple the capabilities of the technology we have.
> At that point, Katasi generally doesn’t block the messages on the assumption that the passenger will prevent the driver from texting.<p>Yeah, like that's going to work.<p>This whole thing seems like an over-complicated, over-engineered technical solution to a cultural problem.
This is smart. Cellular jamming is mega-illegal in the US (even in prisons![0]), and when I first read through this article I missed part of the first paragraph and couldn't understand how this product could be sold.<p>However, the idea of working with network providers is great, and opens the door to a lot more options, such disabling cellphones in bars, resturants, etc. based on complex filters (e.g., allow "emergency" texts or only from close family).<p>I bet the movie theater industry will jump on this quickly.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.wired.com/2010/03/prison-mobile-phone-debate-jammed-up-in-the-system/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/2010/03/prison-mobile-phone-debate-jamm...</a>