back to article US may disable all in-car mobile phones

The US government may require cars to include scrambling tech that would disable mobile-phone use by drivers, and perhaps passengers. "I think it will be done," US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said on Wednesday morning, according to The Daily Caller. "I think the technology is there and I think you're going to see …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

      Wrong!

      A vehicle is not a Faraday cage. Or, more accurately, a vehicle is a faraday cage that will, nevertheless, not be able to block electromagnetic radiation at the wavelengths used by mobile phones. your idea that the car will prevent a jamming signal having an effect outside the car is very easy to disprove using this simple test.

      1) Get inside your car.

      2) Make a phone call.

      If you can make a call then your car isn't an effective faraday cage at the wavelengths in question.

      Any signal capable of blocking or intercepting your mobile phone from within the car will be powerful enough to affect phones outside the car. If it's not strong enough to transmit outside the car then it won't actually be strong enough to have any effect within the car either.

      You make the mistake of assuming that limiting by law the "distractions" a driver will face will somehow reduce them. This is a false assumption. If you remove one distraction a driver will simply come up with another one. This is because the *driver* is allowing himself to be distracted. He is a bad driver. Banning his phone won't magically make him a better driver; he will still be a bad driver who will simply express that lack of ability in some other way.

    2. ChrisC Silver badge

      Umm???

      If vehicles truly were Faraday cages, there'd be no need for mobile jammers of any kind, because any phone within the car would never see a signal from the base stations outside the car... And I'm not aware of any train carriages in the UK which used active jamming (which, remember, is slightly illegal), however for several years now there have been carriages with metallic coatings on their windows - the combination of this plus the metal carriage bodies DOES then behave as a fairly effective Faraday cage for mobile and broadcast radio frequencies.

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      @Is it me?

      "I was nearly killed by an executive chatting on his brand new mobile doing in excess of 70mph and completely missing the fact he was approaching a longabout, "

      It's amazing how educational the threat of sudden violent death or serious injury can be

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a prick

    This guy is a complete twat. In some states in the US it's illegal to have any alcohol inside your car, it has to be in the 'trunk', how pathetic is that.

    They treat adults like children over there, not to be trusted !

    1. Sandra Greer
      Pirate

      Treat adults like children?

      Been following our elections over here? There are a lot of "adults" who are just children in disguise, and they vote,

  2. Tigra 07
    FAIL

    Stupid idea

    So will they compensate all the makers of handsfree kit in cars?

    And will they be blocking the signals completely?

    This is a badly thought out idea, if i can't even use my phone's GPS in one of their cars i'd return it or try and sue.

    And if your passengers cant use their phones either do you think anyone's going to buy the cars that implement this tech?

    How do you phone someone if you break down?

    What if your wife goes into labour and they can't contact you?

    What if you need the police?

    This is a stupid idea, there's no way they'll get anyone to agree with it

  3. teacake

    LaHood?

    When reading the quotes from LaHood, I can't help imagining him as the evil businessman from Pale Rider.

    If he doesn't get his way, will he call in the Pinkertons?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Hmmmm

    Won't it just mean it's also going to be impossible to make or recieve a call from a pavement (OK Sidewalk for our US collegues) when every passing care will be trying to jam the signal you have?

    At the very least the constant jamming /de jamming will trash battery life in phones as they contsantly seach for the network after a passing car kicks them off.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Very well demonstrated

    "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"

    Well done everyone!

  6. Cynical Observer

    Opening Gambit

    With the number of people who will scream every variation of "No!" and "prise it from my cold dead fingers" it's easy to see that this proposal will stumble before it ever gets anywhere near implementation.

    At which point, it opens the door to the more reasonable - "well every car manufacturer must fit bluetooth hands free as standard." It's hard to see how people can disagree with such a proposal - after all it's safer than hand held (separate argument for another day) and if a default part of the cost, people won't be tempted to cut corners and not spec it when choosing a new car. (Why is it that I regularly see drivers of expensive luxury marques holding phones - spend £50k plus on a car and too tight arsed to add £500 for bluetooth.... where's the sense in that?)

  7. JMB

    US may disable all in-car mobile phones

    I have no problem with a complete ban on use of mobile phones by drivers but this seems a crazy way to go about it. I can't imagine high powered businessmen and politicians in their chauffeur driven limos not being able to talk on their phones all the time. Many vehicles have systems using mobile phone networks for relaying data to equipment in the vehicle, anti-theft tracking devices using mobile phone networks and even the police use them for tracking criminals' vehicles. Emergency services use mobile phones both for speech and for data (partly because of the very expensive Airwave network they have been forced to use in the UK) but I suspect the same in the US.

    All would be jammed as would a pedestrian if a jammer equipped car passed.

    Presumably the police will still be allowed to use their mobile phone style "radios"?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Passengers?

    So no making calls from the back of a taxi as well then?

    Also can they really jam accurately enough that pedestrians won't be being cut off as cars pass?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Surely a more effective way to reduce car crashes...

    ...is to ban the CARS!

    1. A J Stiles
      Alert

      Many a true word spoken in jest

      Well, that's pretty much going to happen sooner or later anyway.

      I have a book which says "there are about 30 years' worth of crude oil left in the ground". It was printed in 1972. And although they've found more oil since then, one fact remains: When it's gone, it's gone forever, and invading more countries will not make any difference.

  10. The Nameless Mist
    FAIL

    Car Crash

    Car goes over the edge of the roadway into a ditch.

    Driver is trapped upside-down in jammed seatbelt.

    Oh dear .. you can't call 911 .. your mobile is disabled.

    FAIL!

  11. trydk
    Stop

    Non-Phone-Related Experiences

    For a four year period I did some serious commuting and in my experience, the phone is not the worst culprit.

    What did I experience? Lessee:

    Lorries with drivers that had been driving for ages, apparently without sleep. One managed to drive at full pelt inside a protective railing and crash into a bridge. The cabin part was compressed to half size! He could as easily have massacered a queue of cars, but he left that to some of his colleagues. Another lorry driver was taking advantage of the full width of the motorway, swerving back and forth through all three lanes AND the hard shoulder. And what about the poor guys that realise too late that they are almost missing the exit and turn so sharply that the lorry overturns. These are creating quite a bit more accidents than people on the mobile phone, especially if it is hands free.

    Other people have mentioned make-up and shaving as distractions; I can add to that reading and watching movies. I have seen people driving with books (and maps, of course) on the steering wheel, that cannot be good. And I have seen at least two cases (OK, that is probably not quite as ubiquitous as the phone :-) I remember of people with some sort of media player/DVD player on top of the dashborad showing a movie. Distracting? I'd think so!

    Let us quickly put this suggestion to rest. This is obviously made by some politician who has not had his monthly/weekly/daily shot of "fame" and need something that gets a reaction ... and, Hey Presto, he got it!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Is It Me

    Problem is that all you would need to bypass the cage effect is an external aerial of some type - average techy could probably cook one up from a peice of tinfoil and a lengrth of electrical wire. And duct tape of course, you can't make anything without duct tape.

    1. Shades
      FAIL

      Genius...

      ...now all you need to do is tin-foil me up an actual aerial connector for my PHONE and the millions of other like it that no longer come with an external aerial connector.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where does it end then?

    and next....

    - All in car entertainment including radio, CD etc should be banned - it distracting and therefore dangerous.

    - It should be illegal to transport children and animals - they distract and are therefore dangerous.

    - All road side advertising should be banned - it's distracting and therefore dangerous.

    - All cars should be standard with no distracting paintwork or logos - thats is distracting and therefore dangerous.

    - Driver and passengers should all be gagged - talking is distracting and therefore dangerous.

    - Seatbealt should be extended to lock legs and arms in place - moving about can distract and is therefore dangerous.

    - All modes of transport should be banned as they are just dangerous.

    - Everybody should be sealed and strapped into the houses - life is just dangerous.

    How far do we have to go here, it's plainly ridiculous.

    Driving is far far far safer than it has ever been and technology is playing a key role in making that even safer - very soon it will be very hard to crash a car even if your on the phone looking behind you and eating a sandwich!

    1. Charles 9

      Well...

      #3 and #4 I wouldn't mind. Save the ads for foot traffic and the bling for your person.

      #6 might not be a bad idea, either. Could help deal with submarining instances (crash and you end up escaping the belt by sliding UNDER it).

      "Driving is far far far safer than it has ever been and technology is playing a key role in making that even safe" Then how come driving is still a whole lot more dangerous than, say, flying in an airplane?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Charles 9

        "Then how come driving is still a whole lot more dangerous than, say, flying in an airplane?"

        There are a couple of reasons I can think of, Millions of cars versus thousands of Planes, Pilots are highly trained and experienced, versus the average dumbo driving a car. Plus flying an aircraft is easy once takeoff or landing has been accomplished with little opportunity for collision in mid air. Against constant danger of collision at all times in a car.

        (OK that's three).

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Joke

      AC@11:15

      "How far do we have to go here, it's plainly ridiculous."

      Boy. Do I know a British political party you're going to love.

  14. Kubla Cant

    Sense of Proportion

    No indication is given of what proportion of accidents are caused by cell phone distraction, or how many could be eliminated by cell phone jamming. A politician simply floats an idea, and there follows a storm of discussion about whether it's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. All road safety measures are a balance of benefits and costs (both financial and human). Without information about these it's impossible to decide on such a proposal.

    This looks like another case of politicians' inability to distinguish big things from small things. It reminds me of the way we were going to stop global warming by not leaving the TV on standby.

  15. system11
    Flame

    Need more focus on phone users in cars

    Stop focusing on speeding and go after people using phones - simple. I saw a woman career into the oncoming lane while trying to take a left a few days ago, phone wedged between her shoulder and ear.. I'm just happy there was a traffic island between where she was and I was, shame she managed to avoid hitting it though.

    Oh - what was that, it's not lucrative enough?

  16. Atonnis
    Go

    Why not...

    Maybe rather than outright blocking, and thus inconveniencing anyone else in the car, stopping services, etc, why not just make it illegal to not have a big green light on the top of the car that lights up intensely when there is a phone in use and not through a car-based handsfree system.

    Let's face it, in the main those who seem to be a danger, those prattling away on their phones whilst racing along, are usually alone in the car. It would be a pretty visible situation if you have one person in the car and the big green light is saying 'hey, I'm on the phone!'.

    The other idea is you have an in-car camera affixed on every driver that only activates when a phone is in use. The camera then broadcasts to everyone nearby a live feed of what the driver is doing. Evidence galore.

    At that point you make it a mandatory minimum that when caught the driver loses their car, on the spot, and they're left on the side of the road until they can make it to the nearest impound centre and pay the minimum £5000 fee.

    I also think that cars should lose all key slots and have them replaced with drivers license slots, so that drivers can only start cars with a valid license and insurance.

  17. fishman

    Ban front seat passengers?

    How about banning front seat passengers? I see drivers talking to the front seat passengers, turning their heads towards the person and their eyes away from the road.

    I doubt if the cell phone jamming will happen - It's the sort of issue that will get the current administration voted out.

    1. A J Stiles
      FAIL

      No, because

      Front seat passengers can see the same road as the driver, and usually interrupt the flow of conversation on seeing a hazard.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    (untitled)

    How long before 'how to break the jammer' instructions appear on the Net?

    And if it interfers with hands free kits, doesn't that ensure more folk holding the phone to their ear, and trying to hide the fact from the outside world? Doesn't sound very safety first.

  19. Rossco_P
    Alert

    Seatbelts anyone?

    Just a thought, but if our American cousins wanted to cut down on road traffic deaths/injuries, wouldn't it be an idea to enforce the wearing of seatbelts?

    1. Charles 9

      Already tried that.

      Thing is, distracted-driving accidents have a higher chance of being non-surviveable...even with seatbelts on (think rollovers, off-center impacts, and broadsides--especially at speed).

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What about passengers

    Surley this will block their signal too? What's wrong with a passenger checking FB on their iPhone while someone else is driving? While I agree mobile phones shouldn't be used by the driver, disabling it completely will cause problems for those who have the right to use their phone when sat in the passenger seat.

    1. Ben Tasker

      Worse than that

      the bored passenger will chat endlessly and distract the driver more than if they'd been texting!

  21. Doug Glass
    Go

    So? What's Your Point?

    For $100 +S&H you can buy a device to jam all signals within a given diameter bubble. Problem is that's a prison offense. The Hooter may want it but the FCC has to make it legal. So far they never have. The funny part is any device like that is hackable with a screw driver and $2 soldering pen. Idiots will be idiots and just as soon as they make an idiot-proof device they come up with better idiots.

  22. R J Tysoe

    @flybert

    "this day several major European counties do not require their automobile manufacturers to fit safety belts, Britain among them ..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation"

    Unfortunately, you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. All new UK cars must be fitted with a seatbelt for each passenger.

    It is correct in saying they must be worn at all times if they are fitted. In fact, it shows that the law is stricter than in the US, where it is not mandatory to wear seatbelts in the rear passenger seats.

  23. ben 29

    nick nick

    >>And once a driver has passed the test at 17 he never gets retested unless he commits a serious offence or has a medical problem.

    OR joins the police and wants to drive ANY sort of police car.

  24. Little Brother
    Grenade

    Protecting me from the stupid

    Surely the best way to protect me from stupid drivers is for the phone-jamming tech to be working OUTSIDE my car. Let's say it wipes out everything within a 100m radius - that's giving me a lot of protection.

    It's not just loony car drives I'd be protected from. Absent-minded teenagers about to step out into the road in front of me without looking because they're discussing COD Black Ops with their mate would be a thing of the past. And Al Quaeda terrorists wouldn't be able to remotely detonate roadside bombs while I'm driving past.

  25. Steve 6

    MEDIAN FAIL

    "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"

    The average need not be the halfway/midpoint - that point is actually the 'median'.

    There can be considerably more (or less) than half of a population above or below an average.

    Most people earn less than the average wage.

    Perhaps George Carlin was being cleverly ironic and no-one noticed .....

  26. Tagware
    Happy

    Your making this hard!

    Guys,

    It's reasonably easy for the system to work without any blockers etc. Most phones have a device that senses movement. Hence, if moving more that 10 mph then the phone part (DSP) of the mobile is dis-engaged. If you are in public vehicle then a node sends out a counter command via base station. So, thing like trains and Planes, etc. can counter demand the switch off. The GPS info generally doesn't use the DSP so this would still function.

    You can still ring the emergency services, as at that time you would have 0 MPH. DSP would be switch on by this time. If, you were travelling faster than 10 Mph, then you shouldn't be on the Phone.

    If you happen to have a chauffeur (Luck person) then the device would link to a handset in the back of the vehicle.

    There, not that hard really.

    1. ChrisC Silver badge
      FAIL

      *We're* making it hard?

      First off, whilst many current and fairly recent phone models do have some form of motion sensor onboard, that doesn't mean that most of the phones currently in use have such sensors - think of the millions of regular Nokia, Ericcson, Motorola etc. handsets still in daily use, none of which offer anything more than basic phone functionality.

      Secondly, the typical motion sensor is an accelerometer, which as the name suggests senses acceleration, and therefore the phone would need to sense some acceleration in order to know that it's started moving. If you were to turn your phone on once your vehicle had reached a steady velocity, there'd be no acceleration to sense... There's always GPS for those phones that have it, but preventing the user from disabling the GPS receiver (as would have to be the case if you were relying on GPS-provided motion data to enforce the no-call rule) would murder the battery life and thus sales of the phone. You could try using cell tower triangulation to attempt to deduce whether the phone was moving or not, but that's not always reliable.

      Thirdly, you're adding complexity by requiring a redesign of all phones to incorporate both this >10MPH kill switch and to continually scan for the re-enable signal from the picocell on the bus/plane/etc, AND requiring operators of public transport vehicles (or at least, those who want to allow their passengers to continue using their phones) to install picocells which support the re-enable signal.

      Fourthly, this still penalises passengers in ordinary cars.

      Fifthly, there are times when being able to call the emergency services whilst on the move is A Very Good Thing - assuming emergency calls only need to be placed whilst stationary is wrong.

      Sixthly, no. Just no.

    2. Michael C

      not really

      They sense acceleration, not movement. it requires GPS to sense movement over a distance. Still, that could be a passenger as easily as a driver, there;s no way to pinpoint the phone to the front left sear (or right in other countries).

      the enforcement here is simple:

      1) you can be pulled over simply for having something (ANYTHING) in your hand while driving a car.

      2) ALL voice use of cellphones by the driver must be through integrated systems starting with all new cars, and through aftermarket systems or blue tooth single-ear headsets for older models, NO exceptions.

      3) All phones must support voice dial at no extra charge from this point forward.

      4)If you are pulled over, and a cell phone is visible anywhere near a driver, the cop will take the phone number, call the provider on a hotline, and confirm is SMS or e-mail have or have not been sent from the device during the current trip (easily validated by noting the length of time it was traveling by tower hopping or GPS log, but that can be done without revealing WHERE they dove to/from without a further court order, aka, i can tell you were driving on a freeway for 2 hours without a stop, but i don;t have to tell the cop where to or from), then they check the log in the phone. If SMS were sent during that time, but do not appear in the log, it's not only that you're charged of texting while driving (which a court will latter disseminate from more detailed records), but of destruction of evidence too. If SMS were received, but were deleted, clearly they had to be read to do so, and you're also guilty.

      5) make the penalty for using a cell phone while driving equal to the penalties for drunk driving.

      6) apple vehicular manslaughter laws equally to accidents caused by distracted driving.

      We don't need to block phones, we don't need to mandate additional equipment (other than OPTION equipment to use a hands free device while driving, that's your choice if you want to, with the exception that all cars should have this built in so the car itself can dial 911 in even of a wreck in order to save lives). We just need to make sure people don;t do this. Putting blocks on cell use while driving through Jammers is exactly the same as if they required a breathalyzer ignition test on all cars. They'll never pass either, so we go the easy route: very strict enforcement.

      It may be a privacy concern for cops to have access to detailed call records and GPS logs in the effort to prosecute drivers texting but it is NOT a privacy concern for them to have access to a "was it used or not" report. We can easily accommodate that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        #4 wouldnt work

        All you have to do is put the cellphone in your pocket if you are pulled over. What's the cop going to do to you, bust you for having your own personal private property in your pocket? Besides, in the U.S. the cop can't search you personally (ask you to turn out your pockets included) unless he has probably cause to believe you have materials on you that might be illegal.

  27. David_H
    Stop

    Biggest distraction

    The biggest distraction in the UK is the speed cameras! If you see one, you spend more time concentrating on your speedometer than the road in front of you.

    Now, if those speed cameras could be converted to catch all the motorists with a mobile to their ear, then I would definately support that.

    Talking of bad driving, didn't BMW once recall one of their executive cars so that they could remove the indicator stick that had proved to be superflous?

  28. Steven Guenther
    Grenade

    passengers too?

    When I call my wife, my daughter answers the phone and acts as receptionist when they are on the road. Will this be disabled? Small towns use cell phones for emergency vehicles. Will this be disabled too? How about no cell phone in the automobile after an accident? Treat them like drunk drivers because they are also people with no self control. Drunks get breathilizers in their cars, put a cell scrambler in distracted driver's car. (not mine)

  29. Tom 13

    Saw a post on this yesterday.

    First two post (within 2 minutes of each other) both noted it would never pass Constitutional muster. SCOTUS has been pretty consistent that infringement on 1st Amendment rights need to be narrowly tailored. Even presuming you can solve the technical problems with not extending the jamming beyond the range of the car, providing GPS navigation, and alerting emergency services in the event of an accident, you are still necessarily interfering with the 1st amendment rights of other passengers in the vehicle, which is NOT permissible.

  30. Bill Gould
    FAIL

    Oh well then why not...

    ...use their tech to put fucking phone functionality INTO every damn car so I don't have to hack their scrambler to disable it.

  31. red floyd
    Thumb Down

    "Personal Responsibility"

    So to promote personal responsibility, LaHood is going to make our decisions for us. And War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    More Stupidity From an American Democratic Administration

    'nuff Said.

  33. ElReg!comments!Pierre
    Coat

    Hem not quite, Mr Carlin

    "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"

    Shirley he meant the _median_ person, not the _average_ one?

    Mine is the one with the 3rd edition of "statistics for dummies" in the pocket.

  34. Michael C
    WTF?

    Maybe he should have talked to the FCC before speaking

    This is NEVER going to happen....

    Scrambling? Seriously, does he know the first thing about signal technology? To scramble a phone in a car means they'll need a powerful enough signal that would blank out ever phone for a hundred yards from the car. People would not be able to dial 911 in emergencies from the side of a freeway, and phones would almost entirely stop working in cities and parking lots and dense areas where people are around moving cars.

    Even a system for the car to identify a particular device inside the car and tell it to turn its radio off is extremely complex, and will have repercussions in unintended consequences. The DoT has NO power here, only the FCC. They already ruled that schools, churches, and jails can't use this technology due to the risks there, and you want to allow it in CARS??? hahahahhahaha.

    Make this simple: It is against the law to have a cell phone in your hand in a car you are driving, period. Make the fine VERY large (say, $5,000), and open up civil suits to anyone guilty of using a mobile device that results in an accident causing personal or property damage. All operation must be hands free via a headset work in one ear, or via integrated car system. Passengers are not effected by this law. In the event of a wreck, an officer can request you display your SMS, email, and other app logs to him proving you were not using the device in any mode other than hands free. make it very easy to get a "it was in use" statement and log from a phone company (not including who messages were sent/received from, but just they were sent or read (received could happen in the back ground, so we need a flag knowing it was VIEWED). Make it very easy for law enforcement to bust you on this, make the fine VERY high, and make it something they can pull you over for all by itself. Mount cameras on cop cars they can aim at your car and record you with the phone in your hand. Simple to enforce. make the punishment for killing or maiming someone while using a hand held device in a car the exact same punishment as vehicular manslaughter (in the first degree).

    1. Rick Giles
      FAIL

      May not work either

      "an officer can request you display your SMS, email, and other app logs to him proving you were not using the device"

      I'm thinking that that would violate some privacy laws where work issued devices must comply to HIPPA standards concerning PII.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like