HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 6/8  >  >>
fatmanonabicycle
User Rank
Silver
Mobile Electronic Devices
fatmanonabicycle   1/9/2012 9:57:00 AM
NO RATINGS
Simple really, the task is for the lawmakers. Ask the question- "would you use any form of mobile communications device or watch a movie while in control of any form of mechanical transport ."

Those that do not immediately answer "No"; ban them for life.

Doesn't get easier.

Ratsky
User Rank
Platinum
Another modest proposal
Ratsky   1/9/2012 9:54:40 AM
NO RATINGS
I think most folks here have agreed that there really isn't an effective way for the government bureaucracies to address this critical issue. How about a true "free-market" solution that could actually work?  Insurance companies could offer an option: in return for a substantial premium reduction, there would be a clause added that would severely limit (5%? $10K?) or even eliminate the amount of liability payment coverage in the event that the insured is found guilty of "distracted driving" or equivalent in relation to an accident.

 

Unlike the original "modest proposal" (Google it) or my favorite alternartive (make attempted suicide a capital offense), this one is totally serious!

Walt
User Rank
Gold
Re: Distracting Devices
Walt   1/9/2012 9:53:10 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, let's require an audio feed in all cars that let's the government know if the driver is talking to a passenger and a camera to watch the drivers pupils to tell the government whether they look at their HVAC settings or instrumentation too often.  Then if the driver talks to a passenger, or looks too much at their dash or any other items, the government can send them an automatic citation.  Oh, I forgot that passenger conversations are a distraction to the driver.  We'd better cite any adult passenger that speaks at over 60dB.  We'll need to require retinal scanners for passenger ID.

(Please do not take this seriously - this is intentionally ridiculous to demonstrate the direction we're headed.)

John
User Rank
Gold
Another government ban the answer?
John   1/9/2012 9:49:18 AM
NO RATINGS
If we ban cell phones then why don't we ban CB radios, pagers, and maybe even FM/AM radios?  All of them require a button to be pushed, things to be read to operate and talking... talking... talking...  Let's just hope people don't become too engrossed in there favorite radio program or song and overlook road hazards.  Ban cell phones and spend even more money enforcing it and then what's next?  Why doesn't anyone ever talk about a campaign to make people more aware of when it is appropriate to open up that cell phone instead of having the government take it away.

Cosmapa
User Rank
Iron
The answer is: More electronics.
Cosmapa   1/9/2012 9:46:24 AM
NO RATINGS
If history is any guide, there will be more - not less - driver distraction in the future. Add to this demographics that point to more, ever ageing drivers. The solution cannot be - and will not be - regulatory. The only way around this is electronics to assist the driver: obstacle warnig, collision avoidance, automated traffic control, etc. Design news, please have your journalist visit the automotive labs and report on the amazing technologies which are surely being developed.

Semipro
User Rank
Iron
No Design SolutionWill Ever Exist
Semipro   1/9/2012 9:37:39 AM
NO RATINGS
In 1992 I took a graduate level mind cognition course in which the professor demonstrated unequivocally the human brain's inability to drive and carry on a conversation without significant distraction.  It should be noted, this was at the advent of cellular communication and he predicted that we as a world faced grave consequences when driving and cell phone use became widespread. Studies on this issue have existed for the past 15 years but it has never been addressed. The additional concentration of texting causes even more problems than a conversation just as the guy who used to read a book or newspaper cruising in the next lane was an accident waiting to happen.  The reality is that many more than 30K lives were lost last year due to distracted driving.  Cell phone use and additional entertainment options within vehicles are only exacerbating a problem that has existed since motorized transportation existed.

Having said that, the genie is out of the bottle and I am unsure of how it ever gets back.  Bluetooth helps but hands free is not the problem.  The brain has its limits in these situations and any conversation is a problem. 

 

JamesPDX
User Rank
Iron
Additional Licensing for Paripherals
JamesPDX   1/9/2012 2:43:40 AM
NO RATINGS
1 saves


I agree with Ratsky, in that automobile drivers need to be trained and licensed better for what they are driving.  In the very early days of cars there was less of a need for such training, but that was well before radios were ever installed.  I remember a fellow high school student installing a 45 record changer and payer in his new 58 Impala and another classmate who installed an FM tuner in the trunk of his 51 Ford Coupe.  I would imagine that many of us might come up with similar stories as what Ratsky shared.

It seems that any training and licensing from the beginning was primarily for one's ability to control a car under basic simple conditions on surface streets with little or no traffic.  The only deviation was to include some rules of the road in their training and license test.  That has not changed much over the decades of major technology changes, and might I venture to say over the past hundred years?  Today, it is disappointing that few people follow those rules.

This should open that proverbial can of worms.  Should drivers only be allowed to operate the available peripheral devices that they have been licensed for using?  Who would decide on the level of training and testing, and for what devices?  In general, the technology of today might warrant a mandatory training schedule for anyone operating vehicles on the public roads today, just as there are for various licenses for race car drivers.  After all, many of the drivers on public roads of today are operating their vehicles in a similar manner.

 


JamesPDX
User Rank
Iron
Re: Distracting Devices
JamesPDX   1/8/2012 11:47:54 AM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
Aside from the known typing issues of my last: caps were not held and words were run together.  A Microsoft issue: resolved.

Drivers need to understand the purpose of their trip, and Plan, Organize, Staff, Direct, and Control their travel plans and driving tasks before doing so.  Does this sound familiar (it should be to cognizant individuals)?  It is true that pans often change and must be flexible, and therefore should have alternatives to considered, before the trip.

There are many other situations where by the driver can be distracted from the tasks at hand: DRIVING in a safe and prudent manner.  If drivers are in a hurry, then they should start their processes earlier (wake up, hygiene concerns, diet, transporting passengers, picking up items, etc.), well before their taking control of a moving vehicle.  Consider other types of vehicles that might be relevant: air, land, sea, mass transit, Earth movement, drilling for tunnels, gas & oil, military operations, laying subsea cables, pipes, offshore drilling platforms, etc..  All of these tasks require undivided attention and concentration.

JamesPDX
User Rank
Iron
Distracting Devices
JamesPDX   1/7/2012 9:03:00 PM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
It is not appropriate in this arena to reference to people as idiots or the like.  Many of the people that you are apparently referring to, do not consider the consequences of their actions or the safety of others who may be riding with them or driving near them.  However, there are times when it would be unsafe impossible or unable to stop or pull over in a safe manner, but need to address an incoming call.  That is not to say the driver should indulge in much of a conversation, but should inform the caller that they are aware of the call, driving at the moment, and will return the call at the next opportunity.  Unless it is an immediate emergency, they must hang up or otherwise disconnect the call.

While it may help to provide some level of safety to anyone in a situation near the user of such a device, I do not think it would be possible to control the usage.  I do not believe that it is necessary for governmental intervention, but do believe that there should be stiff penalties for utilizing a distracting device while operating a moving vehicle that could otherwise endanger the lives of others.  If it were necessary, then the government should have stepped in long ago when radios were first installed in vehicles.  Radios and other entertainment devices are no different and the use of cell phone and GPS devices should be treated with little difference.  Each device has the ability to distract the driver (controller) and have caused serious situations and accidents.

Should the driver be isolated from the rest of the passengers while driving?  Would conversations or other distracting events within the vehicle be necessarily isolated from the driver?  Who or what would serve as the navigator for the driver?  Should the driver be tested on their knowledge of locations or be a professional?  Given that you knew everything, where would you draw the lines?

It is not appropriate in this arena to reference to people as idiots or the like.  Many of the people that you are apparently referring to, do not consider the consequences of their actions or the safety of others who may be riding with them or driving near them.  However, there are times when it would be unsafe impossible or unable to stop or pull over in a safe manner, but need to address an incoming call.  That is not to say the driver should indulge in much of a conversation, but should inform the caller that they are aware of the call, driving at the moment, and will return the call at the next opportunity.  Unless it is an immediate emergency, they must hang up or otherwise disconnect the call.

While it may help to provide some level of safety to anyone in a situation near the user of such a device, I do not think it would be possible to control the usage.  I do not believe that it is necessary for governmental intervention, but do believe that there should be stiff penalties for utilizing a distracting device while operating a moving vehicle that could otherwise endanger the lives of others.  If it were necessary, then the government should have stepped in long ago when radios were first installed in vehicles.  Radios and other entertainment devices are no different and the use of cell phone and GPS devices should be treated with little difference.  Each device has the ability to distract the driver (controller) and have caused serious situations and accidents.

Should the driver be isolated from the rest of the passengers while driving?  Would conversations or other distracting events within the vehicle be necessarily isolated from the driver?  Who or what would serve as the navigator for the driver?  Should the driver be tested on their knowledge of locations or be a professional?  Given that you knew everything, where would you draw the lines?


Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Mandate Bluetooth
Charles Murray   1/6/2012 5:30:02 PM
NO RATINGS
The Bluetooth solution is the obvious answer and most likely to succeed. In Chicago, five suburbs recently passed Bluetooth laws, and two more are pending.

<<  <  Page 6/8  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Self-driving vehicle technology could grow rapidly over the next two decades, with nearly 95 million “autonomous-capable” cars being sold annually around the world by 2035, a new study predicts.
MIT’s Senseable City Lab recently announced the program’s next big project: “Local Warming.” The concept involves saving on energy by heating the occupants within a room, not the room itself.
The fun factor continues to draw developers to Linux. This open-source system continues to succeed in the market and in the hearts and minds of developers. Design News will delve into this territory with next week's Continuing Education Class titled, “Introduction to Linux Device Drivers.”
Dean Kamen tells an audience at MD&M East 2014 how his team created the DEKA Arm to meet DARPA's challenge to design a better prosthetic arm for wounded veterans.
The new draw-it-on-a-napkin is the CAD program. As CAD programs become more ubiquitous and easier to use, they have replaced 2D sketching for early concepting.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Aug 4 - 8, Introduction to Linux Device Drivers
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: August 12 - 14
Sponsored by igus
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service