Nate
offlineMember
Hope he gets it stopped. I'll bet Android is worse, though. But AFAIK nothing is worse than the cookies used today.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374774,00.asp
Pierre
offlineMember
Every single cell phone includes a unique identifier, very much like the serial # on almost all manufactured appliances. The difference is, unlike your hand drill or fridge, it's accessible to the device's OS and software. Furthermore, most recent smartphones include a GPS chip that allow tracking your phone's moves even when it's turned off (if you want true privacy, remove the battery – which you can't do in an iPhone). What we need are safeguards against the use of this information, because for sure we can no longer prevent its acquisition. 
moosepucky
offlineMember
Pierre said:
most recent smartphones include a GPS chip that allow tracking your phone's moves even when it's turned off
I think the next move by governments will be to use the GPS ability of the phones to disable them while in motion. With studies showing that cell phone use while driving poses the same risks as drinking and driving, I would not be surprised to see governments move to make them useless unless they are stationary. Too bad they can't do the same thing with drinking and driving.
Pierre
offlineMember
I can't see using a phone GPS as more dangerous than using a regular GPS, as long as the phone is in a dashboard holder and uses voice to provide directions. It's not more dangerous than using the phone with a hands-off kit, anyway. All that's required is to provide a GPS app that won't work without the hands-off kit connected.
And preventing the GPS from working while in motion will prevent it from being used while on foot. Not the smartest or the most popular decision, IMO. Just try finding your way in an unfamiliar foreign city where you don't speak the language, you'll know what I mean 
Of course the GPS could be disabled above a certain speed, say 10 mph (to allow for running).
moosepucky
offlineMember
Pierre said:
I can't see using a phone GPS as more dangerous than using a regular GPS, as long as the phone is in a dashboard holder and uses voice to provide directions. It's not more dangerous than using the phone with a hands-off kit, anyway. All that's required is to provide a GPS app that won't work without the hands-off kit connected.And preventing the GPS from working while in motion will prevent it from being used while on foot. Not the smartest or the most popular decision, IMO. Just try finding your way in an unfamiliar foreign city where you don't speak the language, you'll know what I mean
I was commenting on disabling voice and data if the phone were in motion (using the GPS to determine motion should be easy). No conversations, no text messaging, no surfing the web, no watching moves, while driving.
GPS and audio (music) as long as the headphone jack were disabled while in motion.
There are enough distractions while driving.
Adding text messaging, heated conversations, and a nice blue ray move takes it over the top. Might as well equip autos with a beer tap in the dash 
Pierre said:
I can't see using a phone GPS as more dangerous than using a regular GPS, as long as the phone is in a dashboard holder and uses voice to provide directions. It's not more dangerous than using the phone with a hands-off kit, anyway. All that's required is to provide a GPS app that won't work without the hands-off kit connected.And preventing the GPS from working while in motion will prevent it from being used while on foot. Not the smartest or the most popular decision, IMO. Just try finding your way in an unfamiliar foreign city where you don't speak the language, you'll know what I mean
My phone talked me to my destination then went to street view to show me the house I was looking for! How cool is that? Any more dangerous than me rubber-knecking driving around looking for my destination? Funny thing is the map app says accurate within 5000m. Maybe they mean 5000mm?
Callow
offlineShe who must be obeyed
moosepucky
offlineMember
Callow said:
What about if you're a passenger?Dawn
Just like with gun laws..... The innocent have to suffer because of the recklessness of a few irresponsible people.
If it saves thousands of lives a year to inconvenience a few "passengers" this is the price we pay to place the power to "protect us from ourselves" in the hands of government.
The other alternative to disabling the devices themselves is to put the power of enforcement in to law enforcement. Create cell phone use detectors (similar to the radar detector detection devices police now use to pinpoint autos with radar detectors in them). If this were to be the alternative expect punishment to be equal to drunk driving with immediate arrest, confiscation of the device for evidence, imprisonment for 1-5 years, and the loss of driving privileges for years.
The technology exists to produce detection devices that can pinpoint autos with cell phones that are in use.
Personally when the technology exists to disable a device and protect all motorists I would choose this rather than waiting until a fatal accident occurs then discover the cause was cell phone use or go to random stops, searches, seizures, and arrests.
Nate
offlineMember
What about other distractions while driving?
Fiddling with the radio and CDs is certainly distracting. Drinking and eating requires one hand off the wheel and spills can be distracting. Disciplining kids can be very distracting.
At one time I owned a driver training and education school and extracted data from a national database (it was in the '70s - no Google or internet) that listed information about injury and major damage collisions. I found, in the category of collisions in urban areas involving at least two vehicles that in the majority by far one of the vehicles was turning left. Perhaps we should ban left turns? (I had a student once, an adult, who strongly resisted making left turns. She was a challenge to teach.)
We could enforce the addition of a video camera in the vehicle, a "black box" to store, say, 15 minutes of video and other data, and transmit selected data to "hot spots" on the road.
Or we could fund vehicles that would drive themselves, at least in urban areas, but I think there would wide spread resistance since the drivers would not be in control.
BTW when drivers are asked to rate themselves way more than half say they are better than average. The number goes up when only the subset of drivers with tickets on their record are considered.
Callow
offlineShe who must be obeyed
I strongly disagree! Quit punishing ME for others actions. Punish them. The second a driver is seen with a cell phone, stop them, fine them arrest them but keep out of my business!
Dawn
moosepucky
offlineMember
Callow said:
I strongly disagree! Quit punishing ME for others actions. Punish them. The second a driver is seen with a cell phone, stop them, fine them arrest them but keep out of my business!Dawn
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
A few irresponsible individuals will always get laws passed that interfere with the rights of honest people.
It only takes a few high profile incidents like the engineer of the commuter train that crashed into the back of another commuter train because he was text messaging and did not see the signals or even notice the stopped train in front of him (no brakes were applied before the crash). His cell phone records showed that he was texting at the time of the crash.
There have been several incidents involving bus drivers who have crashed because they were texting or talking on a cell phone. The death of all children on a school bus is all it will take to "punish" you for what someone else did.
This is how all of the gun laws get enacted. A single criminal uses a gun in a high profile killing (successful and/or attempted assassinations) and shazam 100 million people get punished by new laws.
Man up and take your punishment for the good of everyone 
WinExtra Community Forums is proudly powered by bbPress. | Theme by Braincell Soup | Stats:
