Hacker News Reader

Comment by zo1 | Hacker News Reader

Here's another non-obvious solution to the problem:

Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's phone was on X amount of time before the accident. That way they pay for their own damage, and the damage done to everyone around them. Regardless if they were "at fault" using conventional reasoning.

How about another one: Require all vehicles to install cell phone tethers that have the driver's registered sim card in it. Disable it during the drive. Mandate it's installation, and penalize people that break it, even more so if they were in an accident.

Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them. The only real problem is that no one has either the resolve, balls, lawyers, political backing, or money to implement/require those technical/legislative solutions. So all we get are half-asses solutions with selective (and sometimes biased) enforcement by the police/courts.

View on HN

"Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them"

Still waiting to hear practical solutions, because the ones you gave thus far don't cut it in the real world, IMO.

I like using my phone (responsibly, in a dashboard mount) as a network-connected mapping/GPS device. If I'm heading to an event with a guest and running late, I like being able to ask a passenger to quickly use my phone to call ahead and let them know, etc, etc.

I'm all for attempts to keep people off their phones while they are driving (even when using a hands-free system, because there is quite a bit of evidence that just removing the button-pushing part doesn't help), but there are a lot of perfectly valid use cases that would be destroyed by either of your solutions.

> Still waiting to hear practical solutions, because the ones you gave thus far don't cut it in the real world, IMO.

That's because the real world is developing self driving cars, and they are relatively boring: there is no revenge in that, and they won't save the world.

I will frequently have my wife look up something on my phone or handle the GPS on it while I'm driving or take a call. These are perfectly reasonable and go against your two suggestions.

Further investment in public transport is one part of a solution (and has other benefits) but another part should be reducing the "always available" expectation.

Phone calls are almost always a huge intrusion. I'd rather they act, rather than a ringing phone, as more of an "x needs to speak with you, initiate call when convenient" alert. Then if they become unavailable, they can set a time or wait until your "ready" signal is active and contact you.

If parent commenter already wants to require tethering your phone and your car in order to disable the phone, I have little doubt they're okay with what they would likely describe as a small inconvenience to save lives.

Well if that is his stance, why stop there?

Let's just ban cars altogether and everyone can walk everywhere they need to go. Not only would it be much safer for everyone in the short-term but the exercise would improve long term health as well.

> Let's just ban cars altogether

No, let's just ban human-driven cars altogether. This is actually a good solution. Can't wait until the day it becomes reality.

In the meantime, maybe the society should start approaching driving cars the way they approach flying airplanes? That is, actually train the people operating the vehicle. Current driving license exams are a joke, and people still complain they're too difficult.

In the United States, and especially certain states. Poor driver's ed isn't a global problem.

I live in Poland and I see it there too.

I've heard that driver's ed in Germany is quite comprehensive and rigorous. Heck, even the yearly car checks are thorough (hey, you don't have a standard German first-aide kit in your car? Fail!).

No it's not.

Every day large chunks of the world's population are able to drive safely to their destinations. We have illustrated an ability to do this year after year and yet there's this idea that the best solution to stopping accidents is to ban humans from the equation.

I agree with your thoughts on properly training people on how to drive a car - Western countries that have better driving training and safer cars score far better in deaths per 100k motor vehicles than poorer countries and this is something that can still be improved on. That I was able to get a manual license (in Australia) without needing to demonstrate a hill start to my tester is a complete joke.

I'm not saying that self-driving cars are a bad thing - I would happily set my car to autopilot while I cruise down the highway and eat lunch or take a phone call. I'd love the additional safety of having a system that can brake perfectly for me if I'm about to crash. Being able to take a tight park because I can just get out and then watch my car go into the space? Awesome.

However, to completely ban humans is going too far. Sure, be much harsher on those at fault in accidents where they've disabled a safety feature that could have provably stopped the accident. But don't take the "a few people are bad so let's stop everyone" approach to something that we've already demonstrated a high level of competency at.

That I was able to get a manual license (in Australia) without needing to demonstrate a hill start to my tester is a complete joke.

Perhaps it would make you feel better to know that here in America, there is no distinction of licenses for a manual transmission. You can pass in an automatic and then drive whatever you want. So not only do you not have to demonstrate a hill start, you don't even have to know how to know how to use the clutch at all!

This is true in Australia too though you can take the test(s) with either transmission. e.g., you can pass your test in an automatic and then drive a manual.

Depends on your state. This isn't the case in Victoria. I think they split the licenses into auto and manual about 15 years ago.

This being said, I trained and passed in a manual car, and have driven an auto since. I at least know what the clutch is supposed to do, but I'm not exactly practised :)

> Every day large chunks of the world's population are able to drive safely to their destinations. We have illustrated an ability to do this year after year

Yes and no. The accident rate would I think be viewed as completely unacceptable in almost any other activity.

I imagine that many accidents aren't due to poor training but poor discipline and lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the task at hand.

The fines for using your phone while driving are high and there are frequently advertising campaigns about it, but I still routinely see people (especially 16-45yo women) texting or calling in traffic.

> In the meantime, maybe the society should start approaching driving cars the way they approach flying airplanes?

And the training (and reassessment) in flying aeroplanes is ongoing, unlike most countries approach to driver education.

I passed my driving test(s) 20 years ago and since then there's been a huge number of changes in technology, laws, road layout, etc and yet my license is valid for another 30+ years.

Having insurance companies deny payouts when their insurant's distraction is the cause of an accident is a horrible idea that, in nearly all instances, will shift the cost onto their victims.

Few people can pay for repairs out of their own pockets. Are we going to garnish their wages or place a lien on their assets? Great, the repair will be paid for after the next car gets traded-in. The end result will be victims paying for it themselves, whether directly or through their insurance carriers.

Uninsured and even underinsured drivers create significant externalities that are shifted onto their victims. The last thing in the world we need to do is effectively create more of the little bastards.

This is not a reasonable solution.

There are many situations that it is necessary that I can know when someone has called or messaged me while I am driving, under which circumstances I need to pull over to the side of the road to respond/acknowledge the call/message. Cell phones these days are sometimes necessary, and there are situations where it is absolutely necessary that people respond to them, as long as it is done in a safe way, ie. pulling off the road somewhere that it is safe to do so.

You can restrict people from answering or responding to phones in certain situations (ie. driving), but there is absolutely no situation where you can restrict people from having them on or being alerted to them. In the case of movie theaters or even driving, a vibrate in my pocket is enough to satisfy this requirement, but by no means do I respond to it without putting myself into a safe situation, or a situation where I won't disrupt people, before doing so.

The problem with coming up with solutions to problems is that you need to also think about all the possible repercussions of said solution.

> Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them.

Legislative solutions should only be considered as a last resort, not the first option. Pretty much all laws that I can think of come with unintended consequences, and sometimes create larger problems than they solve. Top examples: alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs.

Also, as you yourself pointed out, enforcement is a big issue requiring a lot of resources and placing a lot of responsibility (and also authority, that maybe they shouldn't have) on the police.

"Legislative solutions should only be considered as a last resort, not the first option."

I agree with you. I'm not one to advocate more laws or more state as I'm an anarcho-capitalist. But the point I was trying to make is that if people really wanted the state to fix this problem, it would be. Either through more laws, incentives, education, technology, whatever. (Side note: this assumes the state 100% does what the general public wants.)

> Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's phone was on X amount of time before the accident

Your insurance company will happily sue you for the payout and more if you were acting tortuously at the time of the accident. The purpose of insurance isn't to protect the driver, it's to protect the victim of an accident ("There's money and you'll get it").

> Require all vehicles to install cell phone tethers that have the driver's registered sim card in it

I have 1-3 mobile phones on me most times and share around 7 SIM cards between them. Also, what about cars with more than one driver?

> Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them. The only real problem is that no one has either the resolve, balls, lawyers, political backing, or money to implement/require those technical/legislative solutions. So all we get are half-asses solutions with selective (and sometimes biased) enforcement by the police/courts.

Yeah, let's try totalitarianism again. This time we'll have the balls to get it right.

"The purpose of insurance isn't to protect the driver, it's to protect the victim of an accident" Well, first of all. It depends on what kind of insurance, and who got it. What I'm saying is that all of the insurance that the reckless driver has, whether for himself, or for third-party damage, should be denied. That way it's ALL out-of-pocket for him, assuming the law finds him reckless and owes damages to the victims.

Now, of course. The victim should have their own insurance, if they're smart. So they are covered whether or not the reckless driver was insured, or his insurance pays out third parties for damage.

Of course, as one of the other posters mentioned above. "Poor reckless drivers won't be able to pay the victim, and this will hurt the victim." Well, I'm not an advocate of more-state, but if that's what tickles your fancy, then mandate insurance. Like, I asssume, they already do for third-party damage? I don't live in the US so I don't know about that.

"I have 1-3 mobile phones on me most times and share around 7 SIM cards between them. Also, what about cars with more than one driver?" Well you're an exception. And if you think that's a reasonable argument against my solution, then you obviously didn't read it in its entirety, or you didn't understand it. If it's the latter, then I'm sorry I failed you. My point is that no one really wants to fix this problem, they just want to appear to fix it. Because if they really wanted to fix it, it would be fixed with whatever draconian/weird/unique/ballsy solution works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com