Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikepurvis | Hacker News Reader

We already have regulations. It's not working.

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.

View on HN

> I say this as a bike commuter who sees phones being used at stoplights every day

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.

Well, when I'm behind someone fiddling with their phone and it takes them an extra five seconds to start moving (and only because I beeped my horn to prompt them to look up), I think it's a problem. We're all trying to get to our destinations safely and quickly. This means traffic has to flow, or we all sit around longer getting more aggravated about it.

This is a fair sentiment, but I'm much more concerned about the safety implications than the inconvenience caused by a five second delay. The same delay can come from lots of legitimate sources— weather conditions, road work, delaying passing a cyclist because there isn't room to give the full meter, stopping for a schoolbus, whatever. When we're in a mindset that the smallest delay is intolerable, it becomes harder to be patient in the cases where slowing your vehicle is actually the safer choice (which, of course, is most of them).

I feel that this problem is self-correcting, since you will get beeped at every time (reliable negative reinforcement) and no one actually wants to sit at a green light, so there's no selfish incentive involved.

Inconvenience isn't good, but it's a distant second fiddle to safety.

I do the same, but please think of the people behind you. If you ever fail to react to traffic in front of you going immediately, you have just wasted several minutes of the lives of everyone behind you, as far back as the backup goes (for example at a traffic light). I'm EXTREMELY diligent, but some folks apparently have no concern for others.

Ah so you're the asshole that's always honking at me

when you're driving a car, job one is driving the car. how is he the asshole for reminding you that the light is green?

Horns are safety features. They are meant for avoiding an accident, not for venting frustration. Here in California at least, using your horn because you’re feeling impatient at a green light is illegal. (Granted, so is using your phone while stopped in traffic, but that doesn’t make you in the right for honking.)

not a californian, so I can't speak to the laws there, but I don't see anything wrong with a quick tap on the horn to let the person know they missed the light change. in my view, this is communication, not mere venting. I would never give someone the full blast unless they were actively doing something unsafe.

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.

I live in California now. From my experience people are quicker with the horn in bigger metro areas. There's always the one guy who has no patience - although I try to keep in mind that person might be justified in trying to get to a hospital or some other emergency.

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.

Horns are a general purpose signaling device. I am aware of no us laws prohibiting its general use ouside city noise ordanances and near hospitals.

Honking at a distracted driver is both legal and appropriate.

When safety is involved, yes. Laws vary by state, and of course enforcement varies even more, but the law in California is quite clear; horns are explicitly not a general purpose signaling device.

Horn honking is like a language. I doubt very many people are leaning on their horn when the person ahead of them is taking too long to take off from a light. Usually this is communicated through short, almost staccato honks from the horn. To communicate "shit you're about to crash" people lay on the horn. I don't think the honks used to wake up people dozing off at a green like are being mistaken for safety honks.

I never get honked at... might want to look into why you are getting honked at often.

try "pay attention to the road and press the skinny pedal when its time to go"

Several minutes? If you wait 3 seconds then you would have to have more than a hundred people stopped directly behind you to get that far!

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.

If it prevents two or three cars from making the light you were both in together, you’ve needlessly made those specific cars wait for an entire additional cycle...in heavy traffic, it’s bad for everyone when as many vehicles as possible don’t make it through the pipe, as it slows down the entire congested apparatus further.

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?

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.

Nobody can drive perfectly with .01 second precision at all times. It's not entitlement to aim for "good driver" without being a neurotic mess about every time you slow down or don't take the first gap. And I think the logical conclusion of having absolutely no right to anyone else's time is to not take up space on the road at all.

And when I say "about zero" I mean that it can in fact be exactly zero.

You are right.

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.

> I always find it strange when an issue isn't addressed but instead denied by making it seem small

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.

> I was calling your standard impossibly high

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.

> Which sounds a hell of a lot like denial through minimizing.

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.

Needlessly, definition: in a way that is unnecessary because it is avoidable.

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.

I am not getting any deeper into a semantics argument.

> 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!

While I believe that is technically illegal in many jurisdictions, I agree a quick peek is fine.

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.

Long before the iphone, I'd occasionally see a driver on the freeway reading a newspaper draped over the steering wheel.

Yep, that is an unjustified risk. On the other hand, people would also hold a map draped over the steering wheel or beside them. That relates directly to the operation of the vehicle and is in fact needed to operate the vehicle, so it is justified.

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.

It also depends on how you're operating the phone for necessary operation.

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.

For a while due to a bike trail closure, I pedaled across the Sellwood bridge. Because reasons, I took the south sidewalk and had a great view of oncoming eastbound drivers. I saw many drivers holding/operating their phones, by my limited data it was around 1 in 10. Terrifying.

Maybe "take a peek" works for you, but it doesn't for most people. Most people's "peek" becomes "dash off a quick reply" and then "hang on let me fix that typo", "oops green light, let me just stab the send button while I start rolling forward", and "shoot I exited the app without sending now I'm in moving traffic and full on using my phone."

You're making a broad characterization. I suspect it is not backed by evidence.

I suspect it is backed by experience.

Personal anecdotes and confirmation bias isn't data.

I was nearly hit by the driver behind me moving forward when the vehicle next to them moved forward and they lurched forward with them. They were looking at their phone, I'd guess they saw the neighbor moving and thought it was a green light and time to go. Fortunately they had enough space and hit their brakes in time.

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 was bumped by a car behind me in the exact same situation. I looked in my rearview mirror and immediately saw the cell phone in her hand. What made this particularly amusing was when we got out of our cars to assess any potential damage, I realized the woman only had one arm. Fortunately there was no damage — especially since I was in a rental car and wasn't looking forward to the insurance rigamarole.

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.

If your answer to "Why is it bad to use a phone when stopped?" is "Some drivers use phones while moving, causing accidents.", then that's not a very strong argument.

See the article yesterday about normalization of deviance.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19770562

That could be relevant if you put both actions on the same continuum.

But in that case allowing the phone in the car at all is also on the same continuum. Wanna ban that?

So, slippery slope?

My thoughts on this.

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/ruminations-on-stoplights-and...

If you can't wait, and put away easy to dodge distractions, you should not be driving. For most people, driving is the single most dangerous thing you will do today, with the highest risk of you causing death.

> 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.

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 these folks aren't directly in front of your vehicle or running deep reds, you aren't going to collide with them when you have a green light and travel forwards. If you lane change, you need to do it outside of intersections and check your mirror / blind spot, like always.

If the car in front is 50cm further from the gutter then a cyclist can easily be in a blind spot that's directly in front of your vehicle, especially a higher and less transparent vehicle like a delivery van. If that van is 50cm in front of you then you can easily miss someone still crossing the road, like an elderly person that can't walk fast enough, if you were paying attention you have a much higher chance of being aware of them.

If you aren't willing to be attentive then you shouldn't be trusted to operate heavy machinery.

If you have a tall vehicle with a front blind spot, then of course. I didn't think that was the general topic of the conversation so I didn't cover that. Passenger cars typically don't have front blindspots large enough to hide a person standing.

I'd love to see car drivers that talk about Cell phone use being fine try to do that while operating a motorcycle.

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'd like to see car drivers have to do a day on a non-motor bike to get some idea of how dangerous most of their driving actually is.

I bike to work through gridlock and if you bike smart it's really not the hellscape people make it out to be. Filter on reds to the front so people on the opposite lane about to gun the left see you, and take your lefts by pulling over in front of the perpendicular lane and just go straight on the light change, then all you really have to worry about is potholes damaging your rim and your eyes can stay fixed forward. I was so happy to learn that left turn 'hack,' I haven't had to change a lane since, or check my mirror for that matter.

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.

> I bike to work through gridlock

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.)

I ride a motorcycle, and I don't really have any issue with people using their phones at a red light. There's effectively nothing I would be doing on my bike either. I would look at my mirrors to check if a car might not see my and rear-end me, but in California I filter up to the front which eliminates this risk.

I've ridden a motorcycle and bicycle in traffic many times, for what it's worth, and driven a U-haul truck once or twice. I don't think cell phone use while moving is generally acceptable -- just stopped.

And all of that only matters in the moments just before you hit the gas. All but the last two seconds before the light change you are just sitting on your hands day dreaming. No need to be so obtuse.

> Why is this a problem?

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!

Don't get me wrong, I bike too. I also have little faith that this sort of system will be implemented effectively and transparently. I also don't think it should be legal in the first place to gather this kind of data without informed consent (no, TOS doesn't count). There's so much going on in industry that an IRB wouldn't touch, and that's where I think we need more regulation.

(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).

The OP's dialog box was:

"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.

First, it's not clear to me that this is what is being proposed - instead, it sounds like the companies involved get their surveillance tech rolled into other apps like adware. Second, even if enrollment in the program was done more carefully (people shouldn't find out suddenly and in unfamiliar ways about intrusive technology), you'd REALLY want to study this to make sure that the jarring warning doesn't cause even more accidents.

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.

"CITIZEN, phone interactions are being logged and will be available to law enforcement."

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.

You don't own your phone, unless you run replicant on it. And even then you still have the proprietary modem.

I'm scared by what I see on my bicycle. I'm terrified by what I see on my motorcycle-- drivers texting at 80 mph.

The laws exist, but I have yet to see an effective enforcement mechanism.

I'm terrified that you are looking at the driver next to you instead of paying attention to the road in front of you, let alone at 80mph.

You don't shoulder-check before switching lanes? It's a safety measure, and is taught in most driving/riding programs.

I shoulder check but I'm not able to clearly make out what the other drivers are doing unless I'm way too close to be making a lane change.

It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to notice them looking down and slightly to the right, or very hard down.

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.

Phones are very easy to spot, because it's a tiny glowing screen in an otherwise dark car.

My phone already does that (well, the prompt at least, if not the legal warning). I bet it does little to deter someone who has decided they have some legitimate reason to look at their phone. Effectively it just adds another step so the distraction lasts even longer.

> "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."

So track people when they are the passenger, or are on a train? I'm not sure that strikes the right balance.

> 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."

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.

My iPhone does this simply on the basis of being connected to a car's bluetooth. Most likely it's the driver doing this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com