This is an important problem, but ham fisted solutions which invade privacy are not the answer. We need better regulation of this stuff.
If they can't tell whether you are the drive or the passenger, it seems like their data on distracted driving would be extremely tainted.
Knowing that you do or do not not fiddle with your phone on the road too much as a passenger or driver might be enough of a signal.
"we can tell with technology and science" ie. "magic".
If they can get the bluetooth id of the car you're paired with, maybe they could say "this is the common car driven".
And if they had location information, they might be able to match it offline to other data, like a license plate as you drove past a license plate reader.
and if they don't have any of that, maybe I should shut up because now they have ideas.
I would think the opposite. When I'm the passenger, I connect to Bluetooth so I can control the music and navigation. It makes no sense for the driver to do that.
The data and interpretations are pretty cool though. We came up with signatures for texting, talking (both phone to ear and holding in hand for speaker), and a few other common activities.
Not saying they are doing anything like this, just that it is possible.
More so, especially if you know the type of vehicle someone owns. Without knowing the type of vehicle, you would need data from both sides to differentiate between passenger and driver. But it should be trivial to detect the gradient (slope) of the sensor curve while the vehicle is turning either direction to determine whether a passenger is on the left or the right side. Doubly so with more than two dimensions of measurements available (vehicles normally sway a bit on one side or the other while turning one direction or the other). Simple physics that every suspension will follow... Your body will also sway a bit in three dimensions differently if the phone is on your person. Using these principles, you could also determine whether someone was siting in the front or the back, too. Knowing the type of vehicle, or given enough variance in measurements (more data points is better), it should be possible to infer the position of the sensor due to the gradient of the arc in the turning radius.
Just spit-balling here... lol
Obviously, it's inference though, it's not 100% accurate, and it doesn't have to be.
Although presumably that is correlated with not using phone at same time!
I'm perfectly content for a phone to detect via GPS/IMU that it's in a moving vehicle and send up a big angry prompt like "Please confirm that you are a passenger and not driving this vehicle. Phone interactions are being logged and will be available to law enforcement if a collision occurs."
I say this as a bike commuter who sees phones being used at stoplights every day, and as a parent of kids who walk to school. But also has a driver who occasionally fiddles with Google Maps on the road and could use the reminder myself.
(I also think we need change-lanes-to-pass bills, better bike infrastructure, more regulation on car infotainment systems, and GOOD approaches to punishing and preventing distracted driving).
"Please confirm that you are a passenger and not driving this vehicle. Phone interactions are being logged and will be available to law enforcement if a collision occurs."
Clicking OK on that dialog box sounds like informed consent to me.
I'm not against using technology to improve public safety, but I'm against half-assed ideas which would never hold up under reasonable peer or institutional review without a lot more careful consideration of safety and privacy.
maybe I'm just one of those freedom-addled american cowboys, but I don't ever want to get a message like that from a device I own. save that for the computers at work or jail.
Why is this a problem? I don't mess with my phone while I'm driving, but if I'm sitting at a light for a minute or two, I'll take a peek if, say, a text message came in while I was moving, just to make sure it isn't something important from my wife or daughter.
that said, people expect to go when the light turns green. violating people's expectations as always at least a little dangerous on the road. they should know better, but they don't.
But generally there is a progression to events which follows what one would expect when walking:
1- Polite "excuse me mis/sir/mam" - tap on the honk 2- Louder "EXCuse ME mis/sir/mam" - double tap/one a little louder 3- Very loud "EXCUSE ME PLEASE?" - loud honk
Inevitably, a significant percentage of the time I see this, the person that is being inconsiderate and blocking traffic/a doorway will be annoyed at the person trying to move around. I wonder if there is a study as to the percentage of the population that has this type of reaction.
Honking at a distracted driver is both legal and appropriate.
And that's assuming the entire pack of cars doesn't just catch back up to the one in front of you, where you had to wait anyway, dropping the actual time loss back to about zero.
Minutes? 3 seconds? Whatever. No one has a right to other people's time. I can't help but feel that anything else is a sense of entitlement over other peoples time.
That's not to say someone should blare their horn after 3 seconds, but definitively a tap or two... and if that doesn't work, then get progressively louder.
And when I say "about zero" I mean that it can in fact be exactly zero.
That is why there is an expectation of you paying attention. Including during a red light. That means not using your phone.
I can assure you, if you are using your phone at a red light, it takes more than 0.01 seconds to notice the change in light, put the phone down, look at the street in front of you to make sure there isn't anything new since the last time you looked and go. In fact, if it took you the 0.01 seconds you say, it would literally be impossible for someone to honk you in time before you take off. The amount of time quoted is mind mindbogglingly small.
I don't get honked at. When I'm at a red light, I'm paying attention. If I need to use my phone, I pull over. Therefore, when a light changes I generally move along as quick as possible. If for some reason something falls in my car, I'm having a conversation with someone next to me or I get distracted (happens once or twice a year) and someone honks, I defer to them, since I know I'm in the wrong by not being on the ball.
I defer because I have no entitlement over the time of the person behind me. I'm not making up excuses saying how little time it is. I understand it's wrong of me to impose on them unnecessarily. Using your phone while driving is not necessary. It's all very logical. Basically:
My pleasure < Their Right to not have people impose on their time.
I always find it strange when an issue isn't addressed but instead denied by making it seem small (generally with gross underestimations). I remember a coworker once got fired for stealing a box of pens. When caught he claimed "I didn't steal, it was just a box of pens! It's basically worth nothing." - I think the boss actually fired him for giving that argument instead of owning the issue.
* Exceptions could be made for checking the traffic in GPS or some other activity that aids driving (knowing you need to change lanes with advance notice is important). Checking messages emails isn't one such activity, though I've seen a lot of friends and colleges do it much to my chagrin.
That's not what I was doing at all. I was calling your standard impossibly high, using an intentionally minuscule number to show that every driver violates the idea that "any amount of time[...]isn't cool"
And obviously if you waste so much time you get honked at you've done something wrong. So far I've avoided being honked at for that reason.
But there are ways to use a phone that don't waste time! If you keep the cross light in view and put the phone down when it turns yellow, that's plenty of time to focus on the road situation.
Except... you are arguing against a cartoon of what I said. You even intentionally edited it out to make it seem like I am being unreasonable. I'll post your quote with the missing part included: "amount of time needlessly"
Needlessly. An important part of what I said. If you aren't wasting peoples time needlessly, you are within my standard. Therefore, my standard isn't unrealist.
Let's be clear about the chain of events:
mikepurvis complains about cell phone use during red lights. tasty_freeze posts saying: why is this an issue
rconti tries to take a middle ground by saying 'he does the phone checking at a red light to, but he is highly consious of other people and he notices that many who check it during a red light aren't as concious and implores other people to be so. He explains the chain effect of how a few seconds of your delay can cause several minutes of delay to other people.
Dylan16807, you, post how this knock on effect would only happen if there were 'more than a hundred people stopped directly behind' (as if that is impossible) Furthermore you state: "And that's assuming the entire pack of cars doesn't just catch back up to the one in front of you, where you had to wait anyway, dropping the actual time loss back to about zero"
Which sounds a hell of a lot like denial through minimizing. So I post saying: "even if it is 'about zero'... any amount of time needlessly taken from other humans against their consent isn't cool right?"
It seems like a statement you seem to agree to but haven't stated as much.
Instead, you edited my words to try and prove the point that I have 'unrealistic expectations'.
To me, it sounds like you feel like arguing. Though I might be missing your point, so feel free to clarify what that point is and how it is relevant to the chain of communication as originally posted and recaped on this post.
At that point I was just calling out an exaggeration, which is not the same thing as denial. It might be possible in a very niche case, but "if you ever" portrays it as a typical result.
> So I post saying: "even if it is 'about zero'... any amount of time needlessly taken from other humans against their consent isn't cool right?"
You interpreted "about zero" in a different way than I meant it. You seemed to take it as a small amount in every case, when I meant that it could often actually be zero.
The difference is important, because you can make an argument that a small delay harms someone, but you can't make an argument that zero delay harms anyone.
> It seems like a statement you seem to agree to but haven't stated as much.
I agree that small delays can be harmful, but there's a threshold before I think we can assign blame.
> Instead, you edited my words to try and prove the point that I have 'unrealistic expectations'.
I'm sorry I omitted words. The omitted words don't change my argument. If you think they do, I think you're misunderstanding the argument.
"You do realize even if it is 'about zero'... any amount of time needlessly taken from other humans against their consent isn't cool right?"
Every time someone drives they waste some amount of others' time needlessly. Everyone, always.
When you said "any", were you using it in a non-literal sense? Or do you think other wastes of time are not "needless"?
If you answer "no" to both of those, then I think your standard is impossible, and you're holding phone-users to a higher standard than everyone else.
I'm really not trying to distort your view. If I'm still not understanding something, it's not on purpose, and I really welcome correction.
Please believe me. I did not have any intent to distort your statement when I removed those words. I did it to make it clearer what words I was focusing on. To me, "waste" implies "needlessly" in this context.
-
And then entirely separate from that, I assert that it's possible to use a phone while stopped without causing any delay, if done right.
Therefore this statement:
> every time someone drives they waste some amount of others' time needlessly
Is absolutely incorrect. Following good driving techniques means no needless wasted time happens when driving. By the very definition of the word needless. Anything that is within good driving techniques is needed. By the very definition of good driving techniques.
Since cell phone use to check messages (the point which you are answering to) is not needed to operate a motor vehicle, IF time is wasted on this (again, the point you are literally hitting reply to), any amount, it is a needless imposition on other people. As someone who can communicate effectively pointed out, this has a knock on effect. (again, the point you are replying to)
Using words by their actual meaning helps communication. Playing games and saying 'driving is not needed' is a silly ego defense that doesn't further the understanding of reality and the finding of truth. Especially because there are people who clearly need to drive. And the who point that was being made was 'when driving', not if driving is needed.
This is all very basic.
BTW, in the middle of the hair splitting defensive posting, you forgot to clarify what the point you were making when replying to rconti - because that is the topic we are supposed to be on.
> you forgot to clarify what the point you were making when replying to rconti - because that is the topic we are supposed to be on
"At that point I was just calling out an exaggeration, which is not the same thing as denial. It might be possible in a very niche case, but "if you ever" portrays it as a typical result."
I think that's about all I have to say so uh good luck in life!
What I routinely see, though, is folks with their heads solidly down and noses buried in their phone. Just in the past week I've seen two folks _watching video_ on their phones while I was bike commuting. This is terrifying.
And sure, not everyone peeking at their phones at full stops will also be looking while they're moving. But folks who look at their phones while moving will definitely be looking at full stops, too.
The same distinction should apply with phones. Browsing the news and playing games is not OK. The risk is unjustified because it is not necessary to operate the vehicle. Running a map program is justified. The alternative would be something awful, such as parking right on the freeway to look for directions.
Looking at your phone propped in front of you on a windshield or dash-mounted holder is fine. Looking down at your phone in the center cupholder while still driving is not fine, and I've had the unfortunate experience of almost being in accidents because the rideshare driver is doing something that dangerous.
I've become cautious about taking my foot off the brakes for the same reason. Even when it's safe for me to start rolling, I don't trust them to not hit their accelerator when they're on the phone and notice my vehicle moving away from them.
A peek is probably safe enough, but using a phone is not.
I am now similarly cautious about such "false starts" — I try not to start rolling until I think I'll be able to continue smoothly accelerating to normal speeds.
But in that case allowing the phone in the car at all is also on the same continuum. Wanna ban that?
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/ruminations-on-stoplights-and...
Because you have things to concentrate on while stopped at the lights. Has that pedestrian crossing the road made it across or are they about to step out in front of you? Did you notice the cyclist overtaking on the inside that is now in your blind spot? Is the intersection in front of you clear or are you about to cause gridlock?
Not killing people is far more important than whatever message your wife or daughter sent, if that was truly important I'm sure you've got time to pull over.
If you aren't willing to be attentive then you shouldn't be trusted to operate heavy machinery.
I truly believe anybody driving should at least once drive both a smaller vehicle (such as a motorcycle) and a large one (such as a truck) - to get different perspectives on what the road is like. It's the same road, so it's important to understand.
I have seen close calls by other bikers but they are either 1) riding their bike like they are in the suburbs (in other words, they might as well be deaf and blind), 2) clearly highly followed on Strava with vibrant tight neoprene and riding like its a closed course in the countryside, or 3) fixed gear prick skid stopping and aggressively weaving all over traffic with a Bluetooth speaker and calf tattoos. If you see any of these bikers, keep your distance.
Occasional gridlock for my commute (London) and it often is the hellscape I make it out to be because, uh, that's the hellscape I'm experiencing - pedestrians will step out without looking, even if you're ringing a bell; taxis will change lanes without warning; there's a large number of construction lorries with blind spots; and many drivers don't understand the concept of "leave room".
> but they are either [stereotypes]
Alas, I am none of those stereotypes (although I do ride a single gear, it's not fixed.)
Because when the light goes green zombie drivers looking at their phone move forward without checking that it is safe to do so.
You need to be aware of your surroundings ... including the (motor)bike who has just carefully manoeuvred his/her handlebar past your wing mirror, so you don't punt them into the ground. This is why we have laws, tests, licences!
The laws exist, but I have yet to see an effective enforcement mechanism.
Humans are good at noticing what other people are looking at, so it doesn't take more than a moment to figure out if someone's looking at something either than the road. From there, it's a relatively safe bet if they're not looking at the road, they're looking at this phone.
I see this all the time in a car, but maybe Ive trained myself to pay attention to this considering how many drivers use their phones while driving.
So track people when they are the passenger, or are on a train? I'm not sure that strikes the right balance.
This makes sense if you sort of assume all trips are by car by default, but in places with mass transit this is a useless nuisance for people who mostly take the bus or train.
I never really touch the phone at speed unless but stopped or slowly moving forward at 5kph? I’ll change music or check google maps for a better route ️
So yeah, using your phone on the highway, in really any situation unless its park-and-sleep traffic, is kind of a dick move.
Although I know this would hurt some really nice passengers who like to set up the driving directions for their partners.
Even if you knew I was the one driving, just looking to see that my phone was in use wouldn't be accurate.