Police detectors to warn mobile phone-using drivers | Hacker News Reader

Police detectors to warn mobile phone-using drivers

bbc.co.uk

21 pointsmintone46 comments

This seems like a silly idea - as the article says, there's no way for it to tell whether it's the driver or a passenger, but even if there's only one person in the car, there's no way to tell if the person is actively using a mobile phone or if it's just sitting in the car and there's some app running on it that happens to be transmitting data...

Then add in the likelihood that it'll pick up all sorts of random interference and have all sorts false-positives... It'd probably be just as accurate if it just had a sensor to detect cars, and flash the warning at a randomly chosen 30% or so of cars...

Maybe the real boon will be the way it can be used like drug dogs, to give "probable cause" on command to the police.

We don't really have probably cause in that sense in the UK. Any driver can be stopped at any time purely to check documents if required - police don't need to have a reason.

Probable cause is used to search the car. Police can't randomly search cars. However in order to target areas with minorities who are involved with drugs, they use police dogs that can supposedly sniff drugs. But the dogs really just read their handlers and bark when their handlers want them to. Police can stop anyone at any time for documents. /papers please

Recently in Canada a driver was charged for distracted driving for simply wearing headphones while driving. The judge decided that regardless of whether they were functional or not he was guilty.

All these things just point to the fact that you don't want to deal with the police or with the law as both them don't really care about reality, just their manufactured fictions they use to justify their power over people. As Fault called it biopower.

That's not true in the UK.

Police can use reasonable grounds to search and they don't need a dog to alert to give them those reasonable grounds.

The dogs, if used, in the UK probably are sniffing actual drugs.

Here's some legal information: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/le...

It looks like it's true.

> You can also be searched if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect you have: > illegal drugs

Use a dog. Pretend it's reasonable grounds.

> In all situations, you can’t be searched just because of how you look or who you are, as this is discrimination.

Yes it is and that's how you use a dog to discriminate and maintain the legal fiction.

There are only about 2,000 police dogs in the UK (1,900[1] / 2,500[2]) (vs. _about_ 50,000 in the US [3] - about five times more per capita). It seems unlikely they are being used for routine traffic stops.

Furthermore, reasonable grounds is a low bar. From the code of conduct in the linked document (Scots law, but the whole UK is similar)[4]:

> Reasonable suspicion may also exist without specific information or intelligence and on the basis of the behaviour of a person. For example, if a constable encounters someone on the street who is obviously trying to hide something, the constable may (depending on the other surrounding circumstances) base such suspicion on the fact that this kind of behaviour is often linked to stolen or prohibited articles being carried

A police dog is frankly overkill for establishing reasonable grounds.

[1] https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-14/debates/D85...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog#United_Kingdom

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/20/the-s...

[4] https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512924.pdf

Here's the law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossh...

I don't think it's silly, more of an extended field test which might cause some people to put their phones away. Everyone involved is probably thinking it's of marginal benefit at the moment, but the field-test data can be used to develop the tech. Seems perfectly reasonable.

The alternative would be to go "big bang" on a half-baked technology which would repeatedly fail to secure convictions. That would be silly.

The deaths in the accident could be avoided if the vehicle had an emergency brake assist.

I doubt it's possible to develop a tech that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was distracted by the phone.

Considering the failure mode is fatal, it's not that unreasonable to expect people to turn off their phones in their cars in my opinion.

If you are driving, you can't respond anyway, so just wait until you get to your destination to reconnect.

Phone use is now killing more people than drunk driving so I don't feel like it's an over-reaction. Drivers had their chance to be responsible and they killed a bunch of people instead.

Phones have legitimate uses in cars. Satnav, music, or even just an indication that you just pull over and answer a phone. Given that I've never used one illegally, I think it's fair for me not to want to go through a power cycle for every journey.

How could Uber work without one?

The utility for devices in a car is obvious, no one is arguing that they aren't useful. But that's just a shame, because using them kills people every day and we haven't found a way to police it yet. Power cycling may just be a caveat of the policing methods.

Driving is a privilege that is constantly abused. Perhaps we just couldn't handle unfettered use of devices in cars the same way we couldn't handle drinking and driving?

I am all for some kind of controlled way of safe phone use in cars, but it doesn't exist. Better to remove the temptation until it does.

That sentiment can be made about a lot of things including cars themselves:

"The utility for cars are obvious, using them kills people every day. We just couldn't handle unfettered use of cars. I am all for some kind of controlled way of safe use of cars, but it doesn't exist. Better to remove the temptation until it does."

Sure, but not about the downsides of removing them. It's a balance of pros and cons. Having people stop using their phones at all in a car wouldn't be a huge deal. It is only a recent problem after all. Not having the automobile would be devastating to the economy and people's lifestyles.

The pros of phone use in a car are real, but shallow. The cons are that they cause accidents. It's heavily weighted toward cons.

"Phone use is now killing more people than drunk driving" do you have a reference for that statement?

It was from a credible news source in (and about) Australia, but I can't find the news programmes data source.

I did however find data to the contrary for America, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fat...

So I am probably wrong in regards to US fatalities.

There were articles from insurance companies saying that distracted driving is more likely to cause an accident (fatal or non) than drink driving. I assume they were using their own data for that so I am not sure how credible it is: https://www.thezebra.com/texting-and-driving-statistics/

There’s so many legitimate reasons for the phone to be on and transmitting in a moving car. Wouldn’t it just be cheaper and likely as effective to have a sign reminding everyone to not use their phone while driving?

Not to mention that a lot of new cars have a GSM card built-in for communication and infotainment. My Mercedes updates its own location constantly for instance, so of course is transmitting over 2G/3G while moving all the time.

These signs are useless and a waste of taxpayers money.

For context, across the UK we have similar systems for speed limits.

They are not used for enforcement or prosecution. They are informational boards. Actual speed cameras are different (usually a yellow or blue box that doesn't give any feedback).

It's basically a sort of 'big brother is watching' reminder.

Some of them show your actual speed on a big LED board, leading to individuals attempting to get a "high score".

It sounds from the article like this would be the same. A board that flashes a mobile phone if you might be using one.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a complete waste of time (because I know these boards are meaningless), but the other side of the coin is that a decent number of people actually are afraid of enforcement action due to the signs and slow down.

It's not fear of enforcement that motivates people to act on these signs, it is the moral reminder that their behaviour is not socially acceptable (not to mention illegal). For a large group of people this works. Speeding (and being a smombie behind the wheel) is something people often do unintentionally, or with a rationalization mindset of 'everybody does it' (or something along those lines). For both these cases a reminder without further consequences can guide them to better behaviour.

For the rest who just make their own rules enforcement remains necessary of course, but it helps if you can get a good number of people to cooperate intrinsically.

I suppose it depends a lot on your local area.

Where I live there are tons of these 'flashy speed limit' signs.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone obey them. 35-40mph in the new London '20 zones' is completely normal behaviour if the road permits; everyone does indeed do it, including buses and off-duty police/ambulances.

It is, in fact, empirically socially acceptable (by the drivers if not necessarily by people who live there).

In areas with speed bumps you see much lower speeds because people don't want to damage their vehicles. Enforcement, basically. The same is true for real speed cameras, people tend to speed up and slow down.

That said, mobile phone use is different. I think most people intuitively recognise that using a phone at the wheel, particularly in an urban area, is really quite dangerous, and maybe a sign would work.

Don't want to sound condescending about drivers but on my street I see plenty of people who don't alter their behaviour with the speed bumps - either because they are not observant or it's not their vehicle (the council rubbish vans get thrown over them at high speed by their angry careless drivers!)

Further anecdotally, there is one at the entrance to my village (where a 50 goes down to a 30), and I've seen _plenty_ of people slow down when it flashes.

I've heard somewhere that the speed displays actually help a lot with slowing down the traffic where they're put up. I slow down when I see them too, not because I'm afraid of enforcement action, but because I just forget how fast I'm going sometimes and that board reminds me. Plus, it feels kind of satisfying when you do slow down and you get the green smiley face along with a message thanking you.

I think there's a threshold effect here. People will slow down a bit but not too much. Above that threshold, the reward of being recognized as law-abiding is outweighed by the inconvenience/annoyance of being coerced to what seems like an unnecessarily low speed. Similarly, if the signs are everywhere people start to tune them all out. While they're very cost-effective in general, it's definitely possible for a town to overplay their hand and ruin their effectiveness.

We have these in the US too. Lots of times around schools zones or areas where residents have complained about speeding. They look a lot like a speed sign but have a crude screen with numbers that flash when you go over. There are other signs that show the speed limit and then flash yellow lights if you’re going to fast.

Thankfully I don’t think it’s legal for speed cameras in my state although they do have ones at stoplights.

The article suggests that the detectors will detect 2G, 3G and 4G usage, but will recognise if a bluetooth hands-free kit is in use. This sounds like complete snake oil to me, please could someone explain if this is possible?

I would be amazed if this were reliable enough to survive legal challenge. Personally, it sounds too much like the old "TV detector vans". I'm skeptical.

If you read the article, it says it gives warnings, not fines. It can’t tell if a phone is used by the driver or a passenger anyway.

Well, that settles that then. Just another distracting flashing sign for the driver to deal with.

Not for the people who are using their phone though. For them a push-notification would probably work best ;).

Definitely - surely most phones will be using/connected-to data services even when not in use?

Especially if you're using GPS software that has live traffic updates, or that downloads maps whilst you are navigating.

It would probably fall foul of hacking laws even if technically possible (which it isn't). They just don't want to say it is a camera based system for fear of... vandalism?

An image classifier with a human check doling out fixed penalties would be more effective than this. So would a warning system on phones that shamed drivers. Neither are within the resources of the police to develop (as nearly all police in the UK are local).

> It would probably fall foul of hacking laws even if technically possible (which it isn't)

Probably not - Computer Misuse Act, s.10:

> Sections 1 to 3A have effect without prejudice to the operation—

> (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required

And what if you're using your phone for navigation? It will still transmit data to google maps or whichever maps service you use, but its usage would probably considered legal.

Heck, your phone could be on silent in your pocket and a push notification might set this off. Your phone still has to transmit the acknowledgment.

Really a guess - an uneducated one at that but I'm guessing it is measuring rf signals transmitting out of the phone more so vs what is being received which is why it will also notify if someone is talking on the phone - the phone will be transmitting. There is probably a measurable difference in rf when a phone is trying to send data vs just acting as a receiver, right? From what I can recall, it generally takes more power for a phone to send data to the tower than to receive it. At the same time, you can measure whether Bluetooth is simultaneously being used.

RF signal detectors can pick up what frequency the strongest signal in a range is broadcasting at. I had a cheapy ebay one that at a cost of $30 could pickup my phone ringing or on a call/text on its LTE frequency from about 6 feet away, and that was with it using an untuned antenna as the detector was able to pick up between 100mhz-2500mhz. I'd imagine with a much higher quality detector, a tuned, directional antenna, and a narrower range you needed to cover that you could up that distance several times from the 6 feet I got.

We also had the police employing radar detector-detecting devices 15 years ago that could detect every single radar detector on the market in 2004, and none of those radar detectors were intentionally transmitting a signal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector_detector

I'm in Houston right now, no car, so we walk around here (it is very rare seeing someone not in a car here, no public transport, but that's another topic) what really baffled me was the amount of people on there phone while driving. Its insane. I read about that problem. But I thought it was exaggerated. But hooollyy Molly. It is a lot. There was even an add on tv for a collision detector along the line of:while distracted by your phone, it warns you about an upcoming collision!

I use my phone every day for Google Maps, surely that is going to be a false positive?

"The technology will not be used as an "enforcement tool", the forces said, but was instead aimed at educating motorists..."

I hope there will be enforcement tools in the near future and I believe the fines and other forms of punishment should be very high. First offence could mean no driving for a month along with a huge fine that is based on salary, second offence something along the lines of losing your license completely and having to go through the complete process of examination, etc after a year of reflection without driving, again with a hefty fine. Apparently you weren't that interesting in driving to begin with, in the bus you can look at your phone all you want. Third offence means you don't get a license for 20 years. Killing/injuring someone while using your phone in the car should result into some form of prison sentence.

In my eyes there is 0 excuse for being engaged with your phone in the car in any other form than passively while using it for navigation. The worst are people who are looking at messages and writing.

A few weeks ago I was almost hit by a driver who sped over the crossing I was walking on. I was paying attention enough to see him with his phone in his hand, looking at something on the screen, never looking up and I was just able to stop walking. I don't know if I'd been killed if I weren't paying attention, but it wouldn't have been pretty.

I don't even care that much about myself though, I already have little faith in people's ability to drive properly so I pay attention and hope that keeps saving me. What I worry about are my children, who are bound to make some mistakes when crossing streets, etc, them being kids after all. The idea of someone killing them because they had to make a lame joke in a group chat in order to earn some emoji-based kudos is insane yet somehow not impossible.

Using a phone wile driving is one of my pet peeves, but this doesn't seem like an effective approach. If a problem person is already distracted (not a false-positive), will they even pay attention to the flashing sign?

Just last night I had to knock on the hood of a woman using her phone while driving in the parking lot after she nearly ran over my wife and daughter walking to a restaurant. She was completely oblivious to the goings on around her and got extremely offended when I made the "hang up" gesture and told her to put down her phone while driving. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It should just turn on when there's a car as that will be equally effective as the system (with its flaws) and then they could save the £6,000

Anyone using Carplay or Android Auto is going to get flagged by this. This is stupid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com