Why hasn't technology been able to fix this problem yet?
I walk around my city very often and I see people texting/staring right at their cellphones while driving all the time. It's mainly young female, and very scarey that these people are even allowed to have a license.
Why hasn't there been any solution to this? Even built in jammers would work.
>ITT we discuss how easy to hack a cell phone jammer for malicious organizations if our cars were built with them, and inevitable future of retarded microchips your mechanic can't fix
Kill all 3D females and make my animoos real
>>52644049
They banned that here.
It's called a HUD. It's been done before, its just that it's a little hard to excecute
>>52644247
Here as well, though it doesn't stop people.
Makes me want to get an old 1 ton truck with push bars, and let physics solve my problems for me...
>>52644049
Why does she have two phones?
>>52646681
double the texting power
>>52644049
keep inflating the fines until people stop
>>52646681
multitasking
>>52644049
Manual gearbox
>>52644049
>Why hasn't technology been able to fix this problem yet?
Cars already park themselves and emergency break on their own. The only viable next step is driverless cars and, AFAIK, we are going to get there soon-ish.
>Even built in jammers would work.
no.
This idea gets tossed around here every once in a while, its just plain stupid.
Jammers cannot selectively jam the inattentive peoples phones, they will jam up everything.
From the police, to the pedestrian, everyone within range.
There just needs to be more education about the matter and ticket people for this bullshit.
>>52646681
the red one is for friends and family the black one is for her bulls
Here in the Netherlands the fine is 230 euros. And the problem is fixed quite well.
People call hands-free.
>>52646907
If they were weak jammers that would only jam around the driver seat that's not an issue.
>>52646907
What about built in driver's eyes tracking cameras and an obnoxious horn blasting right at him/her whenever the eyes wander off the windshield?
Would work wonders on people dozing of while driving too.
>>52644049
because it's a user problem
you can't fix stupid
>>52647040
>what is accelerometer that automatically alerts the police
>>52647056
What if i go over a bump?
A turn?
Accelerometers are way to unreliable in this case.
>>52647056
how would you differentiate between a phone being used in a car, and a phone being used in a car /by a driver/
>>52644049
wont matter in a few years
everyone is on this auto driving game
>>52644049
Girls need their validation and cock pics.
>>52647076
>have driverless car
>something happens while i'm on the phone/reading a book
>can't take control fast enough
>get blamed for any damage caused
or better yet
>go to bar
>drink a bit too much
>take my driverless car home
>get DUI
I fear that people in charge will not have absolute faith in driverless cars and put in place some stupid laws that will pretty much require me to look straight with hands on the wheel even if i'm not in control of the car.
>>52646946
would also scare the fuck out of you when you go to change the radio and then you swerve into the person texting and then yup.
Better to just make it not worth it to get caught using one while driving. Can't afford a $5000 distracted driving ticket?
OK, give up your phone and sim card till you pay the fine.
Or your car is getting impounded till you pay the fine.
Or your license is suspended till you pay the fine.
Oh what's that, you need your license for your job? SO you spend hours a day on the road as your job while endangering your life and others constantly then? I hear McDonald's hiring, and they don't do deliveries so you're in luck.
>>52647144
>>can't take control fast enough
Good, you'd be better off.
>get DUI
It's not like your computer would get drunk too...
>>52647163
On-windshield HUD and radio control on the wheel should solve the "me not looking on the road was totally justified" excuse. Also, you don't change the radio station if you're about to run some shmuck over.
>get you eyes off the windhshield/road
>end up with the honker honking your ass
>get stopped by police
>fined 5000 and your driver license withhold
>still being honked on
That'd be hilarious.
>>52647144
>get drunk
>drive
Ride on the passenger seat, you dolt. Or get a [spoiler]driverless[/spoiler] taxi.
>>52644049
Better voice recognition/hands free technology might help. Also cars ALWAYS seem to have garbage touch interfaces. I don't understand, it can't be that expensive to make, or even outsource a simple, functional touch interface. Why can't they just use Android? They're always proprietary, and always bad! The screen they use is like late-90s level trash, why can't they be as sensitive and responsive as phones?
>>52646773
My country is pretty much all manual (90+%) and people still text and drive.
>>52644049
https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/
>>52644049
a mandatory app by phone manufacturers that disables the phone when motion sensor detects acceleration of a moving vehicle.
brb patenting this shit.
Women should not have the right to drive, vote, or even speak in public. Women should be seen and not heard.
>>52647168
again, its going to come down the laws when these cars start hitting the road.
like Tesla's can do it right now, but you can't be drunk and let it drive you home
>>52647226
You're wrong about handsfree shit.
Its being mentally distracted that is the problem
People can take their hand(or hands) off the wheel for a moment and change stations or other shit just fine because their attention is on the road, accidents happen when you start shifting too much focus elsewhere like reading some 5 inch screen or texting your thoughts.
>>52647144
Most accidents with self driving cars would be from people panicking and taking control of the car and then crashing it
>>52646926
En nog steeds zie ik kanker vaak mensen met hun domme hoofd met een telefoon in hun hand rijden
>>52644049
>Why hasn't there been any solution to this?
Technology can't fix stupid. In fact technology make stupid even stupider.
>>52647321
hypothetical, we don't know yet.
Why would the car even let you intentionally crash it ?
I can understand taking control while you're operating it legally, but I assume its going to stop you if you try to ram it into pedestrians.
>>52647226
>in-car touch interface
Another way of getting distracted while driving.
Tactile or fuck off. And only minimal input allowed.
>>52647307
>being mentally distracted
This.
I heard somewhere (radio?) that conversations are the most distracting shit a driver can suffer. And the worst are those agitated ones (not yet fully blown arguments) with people sharing the ride.
What are we going to do when self driving cars destroy millions of jobs?
>tfw no more truck drivers, cab drivers, bus drivers, food delivery drivers, package delivery drivers, limo drivers, drivers ed teachers, ambulance drivers, etc.
Self driving cars are great and all but it's gonna fuck the economy when all these people are suddenly out of work and no nee jobs will be created to take the place of the lost jobs.
>>52647400
technology has been replacing humans for various jobs for centuries, we find new things to work on
>>52644049
You're thinking about this the wrong way.
This is the solution. People who use their phones while driving will crash and kill people or cause property damage they will be liable for.
>>52647425
> People who use their phones while driving will crash and kill people
The solution is to kill other people following the law?
Thanks for the bad opinion.
>>52644049
Just bigger tickets. My brother was ticketed for using his phone at a stop light, fully stopped. $230 CDN. I'll bet you anything if they move that up to $700, with $1000 being the fine if moving, double that in a school zone, etc etc, this shit stops right away. Shits more dangerous than speeding, its ti e to treat it like it is.
>>52647400
Technological unemployment shouldn't delay technological development for a lot of reasons. Regardless, the amount of lives saved with driverless cars will far outweigh the job loss. Not to mention traffic will become much more efficient, and people will have time to do whatever else while travelling. The job loss will be slow anyway. It'll take a while, but 100 years from now people will have a hard time imagining our current reckless means of transportation.
>>52647221
well yeah you don't change the radio station if you're about to run some shmuck over, you get on the gas. But you do look away from the windshield when you're changing the radio station, or when you're trying to find the buttons on the steering wheel.
>sneeze
>HONK
>hilarity ensues
I could see the self driving car working. Doesn't current DUI laws mean you have to be in "care and control" of the vehicle. sitting in a vehicle designed to be a self-driving vehicle while drunk would mean the vehicle is in care and control of you, not the other way around. I doubt DUI would still fully apply in that case. I'd still just pass out in the back or something
>>52647334
Geef ze een tikje vanachter dan ;)
>>52647614
Dunno about the Land of the Free, but here, if you are drunk and sit in your car with as little as the key in the ignition being turn on (as in the motor working) you can get busted the same. Doesn't really matter if you were not on gear, on park brake and chained to a wall or whatever. The intent of driving under the influence was there and is enough. Or something.
>HONK everytime you blink
Niggas would be running them head_and_eyes devices from Clockwork Orange all the time.
>>52647687
yeah that's how it works here too. i dont know about the land of the free either.
>The intent of driving under the influence was there and is enough. Or something.
From my understanding that's what "care and control means," you're sitting in the car and you intend to drive, chains and all. but if the car is designed to drive it self, how could one prove intent to drive, and thus charge for DUI? I think the law would have to be reworded.
>>52647762
If there is, as the other Anon suggested, an emergency take_the_wheel protocol, just sitting in the driver's seat would be enough IMO.
>dont know about the land of the free either
Sorry, assumed you were Americano.
>>52644049
There's definitely tech that exists to be totally hands free on a phone while driving its existed for years. Speaking all of your texts out loud or just calling someone on a hands free head set.
>>52647808
>Americano
DW about it.
There's already cars that "take the wheel" in an emergency or beep when you're drifting lanes, in that case I could see with still charging for distracted driving or DUI cause you still have to be driving it. But if it's supposed to drive itself i don't see how it can be proven that you were gonna drive it. I guess it would just be simpler to ride in the passenger seat though while the car drives itself when the tech is finally mainstream, that way you can drunk text all you want.
>>52646555
>1 ton truck
regular cars are heavier than that...
>>52644049
we've had hands-free for over a decade. we now have voice controlled phones. the only thing left to do is make people use the options available.
>>52646928
>get in accident
>try to call for help
>jammed
>die
>>52647859
they already have laws saying there has to be a person in the drivers seat, and that person has to be sober.
source: truckers
>>52647859
My point is: if there is the possibility of you needing to take the wheel, you must be able to do so. Being under influence renders this impossible.
If this is any clearer.
Like, say, leading a wagon. The horse knows the way, it's basically going by itself, no need to take the reins at all, but if the "driver" is drunk, he gets busted all the same.
>>52647906
Driver being the last failsafe. Don't want it to be fucking wasted.
>truckers
Aren't haulers pretty close to being driverless already? All them lane-keeping, speed-keeping, breaking and whatnot systems.
>>52647930
>Aren't haulers pretty close to being driverless already? All them lane-keeping, speed-keeping, breaking and whatnot systems.
big difference is driverless can do everything else on top of cruise control, staying in lane and brake.
>>52647952
Now, I'm not all that much into this, but I heard something about "intelligent" CC systems that not only keeps your speed, but also manages to keep the distance between you and the vehicle in front a safe.
With all this it does sound pretty close to self driving.
>>52647977
that's still just a tiny bit of driving. you're forgetting turning, lane change, city driving, intersections, etc.
>>52647930
I'm saying the horse replaces the driver completely.
There's no need for you to take the reins.
There's no need for you to be a fail-safe.
Driver-less cars would mean there's no need for a driver, what ever system is in place replaces the driver. So just sitting there shouldn't be enough to convict anymore because at that point you really wouldn't need to be sitting there at all cause the car takes care of everything.
>>52644049
Cars should be blackspots, so when you get in you have no reception.
>>52648003
not to mention overtaking and keeping track of all other cars and even pedestrians
>>52648024
that would be ideal but it wont happen for a long time. current law says there has to be a person in the drivers seat and that person is responsible for what happens.
>>52648034
see >>52647873
>>52648003
You're right I guess.
>>52648024
There won't be a driver's seat and no one would be driving it. Passengers can't get a ticket for DUI, right?
There's a reason you take a taxi when intoxicated nowadays.
>>52648047
you'd have a hard time getting a car like that street legal due to current laws
>>52648064
>current laws
That's the point.
Current laws have you sitting there, sober, getting your ass bored off, while the damn thing is doing what you can do better.
The song of future would have passenger seat platforms driving themselves (with laws legalizing that shit).
>>52644049
There is a solution.
People who do such things die, serving as a warning for those who would wise up and an inconsequential event for the equally stupid or suicidal.
>>52648088
>doing what you can do better
but that's wrong...
>>52644049
It's not a technology problem, it's a human problem.
really hefty fines (like $8,000). there really isn't any other solution.
>>52648108
Sucks to be a shitty driver like you, but I do drive well and need no nigga to be there with me in order to for it to be legal.
>>52647400
What are we going to do when automatic farming equipment destroy the jobs of millions of people working in the fields?
What are we going to do when mass producing factories destroy millions of jobs for small workshops.
What are we going to do when automatic phone switches destroy the jobs of millions of phone operators?
And so on..
Can't wait to see all the methhead truckdrivers out of a job.
>>52648136
>reading comprehension, how does it werk
self driving cars are safer. you can come up with whatever story you want but it wont change the fact they are safer without a human driver.
>>52648154
Teleportation is even safer than driverless cars.
>>52648165
yeah, too bad we have no way of scaling up our current teleport technology for humans and making it safe for biological matter.
>>52647163
That would be authoritarian as fuck.
Policemen and higher ups breaks the minor laws just as much as we do. They can just get off scot free much easier than us.
The phone's accelerometer can tell when you are traveling in a car. The forward facing camera can use eye-recognition to sense when eyes dart up to look at the road and back down to the phone to confirm that it is the driver that is texting. The phone locks itself under these conditions and doesn't unlock until velocity is zero.
>>52647873
When the car is turned on the jammers are on with sensors to deactivate when there has been an accident.
>>52648041
It would be ideal, laws aside we'll see where they get with the tech. Accidents aside, there's a lot of split second decisions that most people aren't even aware they're considering that keep the car on the road and people safe but software isn't intuitive enough to be a safe driver on the road predicting what humans will do. They'd have to be all Humans or all Software.
>>52648047
Yeah, but wheel is still there, you can drive if you feel like it, or have the car do it for you (if you're drunk or otherwise preoccupied. but like i said above it would have to be all or nothing i doubt tech could predict everything a human might do with a car reliably enough to have them both on the road.
>>52648193
That's a problem with the system's accountability not the laws themselves, which is a separate problem.
Besides the whole reason for the hefty fine is to discourage distracted driving not punish people for distracted driving, if it means its a deterrent for 80% of people who can't afford the fine then that's significantly better than those same people potentially killing someone. Not to mention these days citizens are getting better at policing the authorities. Money or power won't save you if you get recorded and its made public. Sure you're rich and could afford the fine but if your license gets taken your SOL. Heck the politicians with suspended licenses might push for better public transit! lol
We have fixed it.
All people have to do is pair the phone with the stereo and all your calls get routed through.
Texting while driving is harder but we have had software that can read a text to you while you drive, so I don't really see why people aren't just using that.
Next step is to have self driving cars because fucking normies cannot figure out how to pair a phone with a stereo.
>>52648193
>>52648479
Besides where i'm from the law already exempts cops and other emergency service providers from punishment for distracted driving on the basis that they have to use their computer terminals and phones while they drive around. If they cause an accident or kill someone they are still liable thought.
>>52648223
>oh fuck better stop the car in the middle of the road so I can keep texting Chad
Yeah that's not gonna backfire. Just make it fucking fine them.
>>52647144
Your short shortsightedness is astonishing.
>>52647869
That's how trucks are rated faggot
>>52648479
I don't see higher fines as a deterrent.
In my country you already lose your drivers license and is fined an assload if you are nabbed while texting or driving under the influence.
People still do it, because "I'm too smart to get caught, lol!" or because they just don't care.
removal of license and $10000 fine. If you can afford to drive then you can pay that fine if you do something retarded that could kill multiple people.
>>52644049
Best thing people can do is get better at multitasking while driving. I fap, change clothes, eat and drive like a pro. Not sure why people can't handle simple tasks without crashing
>>52646907
What we need is speed cameras that also detect phones.
But with no signs. Already the cameras get moved around every month so people can't figure out where it is and drive safely to avoid a $500 fine.
>>52648932
You actually think you be like a pro but you don't.
>>52649207
English is rough
![oscar-gamble2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FPKool5.jpg "oscar-gamble2[1].jpg")
>>52649330
>>52644049
We do have a fix phones can play texts out loud and phones can use speaker recognition to text
But nobody fucking cares anon
>>52648716
There's no good rating system for trucks. Go look at Ford's line as to what super duty means.
>>52648271
>yet another piece to rely on during an accident
>kill normalfags
>enforce self-driving cars
>>52644049
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7yuoXU_QJs&app=desktop
>>52649829
Can't listen because work.
Isn't that basically speaker?
Why do you need radio for it'
>>52646721
>keep inflating the fines until people stop
it isn't properly enforced
>>52644049
In some countries red light cameras detect if you are doing this and alert the cops.
Android Auto and Apple Carplay
>phone runs the infotainment system so it's never outdated
>can switch between platforms in seconds
>no more crappy OE infotainment systems 3 generations behind when they launch
>the device is locked out while plugged in
>have to use special interface designed to minimize distracted driving
>controlled with touchscreen, voice, physical buttons, and steering wheel buttons
And JBL just launched a head unit that supports it with things like a captive screen and steering wheel control support for $400
Pioneer and other manufacturers sell head units that support those things for well over $1000
Probably gonna pick one up for my car since 90s Porsche head units are absolute crap
I can reply to texts and initiate calls with my pebbble. Ain't no problem with it
>>52644049
I almost got killed last week because some lady drove through an intersection while I (and the rest of the cross-traffic had a green light) BECAUSE SHE WAS GOING THE WRONG FUCKING WAY ON A ONE-WAY. She t-boned a mexican in a red SUV in the lane next to me and flipped his car.
>>52644049
I keep my phone mounted on a holder thing that sits on the dashboard so basically I have hands free all the time and whenever I look at it I'm looking forward, rather than down.
This way I'm never actually distracted from the road and I don't risk having to drop it on a short notice in case shit hits the fan.
I wish more people would do that instead of just holding it and being a danger to everybody
>>52647226
>it can't be that expensive to make, or even outsource a simple, functional touch interface.
it's absolutely impossible to manufacture a non-distracting touchscreen interface for cars. They should only work with the handbrake on.
>>52652878
dude, we've been over this.
it doesn't matter if you're hands free or not, you are still being distracted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4cA5YKEEiI
I remember years ago there was an older video about this shit, where on a test track they had drivers do something relatively simple, like count backwards from 100 by 3, and guess what, they all sucked at driving then.
Why it always women that do this (and effeminate men)
>>52649788
Super Duty has nothing to do with it. Basically every truck that you can go buy is rated by how much you can load in the bed safely. 150/1500 is a half ton bc the bed can safely hold #1000. 250/2500 is 3/4 ton and 350/3500 is a 1 Ton truck bc it can carry up to #2000 in the bed. These are American Standards and may be different in Metric World.
