BUST Texters?

I don't know that you can pin-point the RF emission from a moving vehicle and be able to testify to that in court. Especially in moderate to heavy traffic.

There is a simple fix to stop texting and driving. Cell phone towers, that all this communication relay through, could have a simple software update that would shut down all communication from and to all cellphones that are traveling faster then 3MPH based on the GPS receiver in all cell phones.

I know, what if I'm a passenger.....tough, 40 years ago we lived with out this portable communication system, and there is no need for it to operate in a moving vehicle.

The difference between a drunk driver and a cell phone texter is the drunk is trying to drive. All bets are off if they're driving, texting, and drunk at the same time .

Simple?, I don't know what that architecture platform is. I'd be more reserved using the term simple.

I agree with you on another part, I have my phone on vibrate. And I'll answer I reat it like my land line... When I had it. If I'm home, I'll answer it. And if I out and about, I never drop what I do to even look whose calling.

I dont like his suggestion. I can/and have sent one and two word texts while driving at speed. its a real issue but stop the people who get distracted by whatever, not the good driver who takes 2 seconds to say, "okay"

No!

I understand there's complexities to this network software. But the GPS signal is already sent from the handset to the cell tower, and in the case of a 911 call is forwarded to the dispatcher. We don't know anything about the complexities of the NSA or FBI (substitute your countries law enforcement) that the cell phone data collection and forwarding real time of this communication system.

So I do think this is a simple change. Tougher is legislating it. And there will be loop holes, like folks that are chauffeur driven. Maybe even those that are tested for multitasking (I hope not).

The system that was hyped to me for our fleet is a piece of equipment in the vehicle. -- JHF

If you're texting while driving, you're breaking the law in my state. Ipso facto, the system doesn't have to make a mistake. The geographical position of a cell phone can be assigned to a particular text, which is time dependent. There's no excuse for driving carelessly. The experiments have been run, the wrecks cleaned off the pavement, the bodies bagged. I strongly suggest that it's a big exaggeration to say that computers make mistakes in any significant way that comes even CLOSE to the mistakes humans make while driving. And anyway, you're still innocent until proven guilty. If you're texting and driving, I hope you end up in jail before you kill me or my family.

My reply is to the previous poster's comment (part of which I cite) about the abundance of surveillance cameras and the like in Great Britain, and the poster's personal take on *that.*

My comment is *not* about texting whilst driving - something to which I strongly object, btw. The context is 'Big Brother', not off-topic here, as the topic of Big Brother is the underlying thrust of this thread.

'The System' to which I refer in my post is clearly *not* the one which identifies drivers who text whilst driving. That technique involves a person in-the-loop, as made clear by the article itself and so hardly qualifies as a component of an *automated surveillance system* controlled by software - the one the previous poster and I were discussing.

Had you *actually read* my post, the comment to which I was replying, and the article, all of this would have been perfectly clear from the outset. From your response you evidently read nary a one.

Then again, the UK seems to have become the ultimate 'nanny state,' Everyone's supposed to behave like good little children, don't fuss or fight or speak out of turn, keep your mittens clipped to your sleeves so they won't get lost, etc.

A few hundred years ago, things were quite different in the UK (in fact in all of Europe), people were quite different, more varied. Then came this Great Adventure, where people could risk death for a chance to stake a claim in a wild, untamed, dangerous land. Some people were tired of the status quo and rushed out to likely death, others were too afraid to make the trip and stayed put.

Holtz, you and I are both descendants from the people back then, the bored/crazy people who fled/were kicked out of Europe, and the safety-loving people who stayed.

You may call me crazy for disliking government surveillance over everything, but I ask you this; do you trust your government to always be looking out for your best interests? Or do you simply keep your head down, do what you're told, and walk through the streets with your collar turned up 'against the chill' when you're really trying to hide from the Unblinking Eyes ready to rat on you if you make even a tiny innocent mistake and set a toe out of line?

Are you certain that #ferguson can't happen there?

Texting while driving is illegal in my province. Hands free devices are still legal. Passengers are not restricted. If an accident happened and your iphone has been checked and it was determined you were texting during the time of the accident, you face charges. And then you will be faced with law suits that may result from your careless actions. Far too many accidents have killed young people who were texting while driving. Still cars contain lots of devices other than phones to distract drivers.

Most people who cause accidents probably start their defence by saying

"I only....

Funny thing is...

A while back I was driving... lost... I got a call from the guy I was trying to get to.

I pulled up into a layby to take the call and the A-hole who was tailgating me blasted his horn and pulled up alongside (blocking the road) gesticulating and shouting abuse!
It beggars belief!

Of course he'd have just taken the call whilst driving!
Del

A young lady actually told me to f*ck off [gave me the finger] when I honked my horn at her after I noticed that she was steering her minivan full of kids with her left knee and texting at 80 kph. I know the temptation to stay in touch is huge, but where is her responsibility to other drivers on the road?

but where is her responsibility to other drivers on the road?

Or her minivan full of kids.

hmm

And what about voice activated text? I text with people driving, that have voice activated texting, hand-off systems in their car. Is that illegal too? I don't want distracted drivers either, but some of the voice activated systems work well. My car has a hands-off cell phone connection. When I start the car and have the cell phone within range, it connects to the car via Blue Tooth, then to answer a call I just press a button on the steering wheel, and speak. To make a call I can use voice activated but I don't like that, as I find it distracting, so I pull over to make calls.

And also how about Automated texts?

When my phone 'sees' that I am driving (aka, when it has a bluetooth connection to my handsfree device) Any incoming text gets an immediate reply:

Auto-reply (from the auto): Driving, will reply ASAP.

That gets sent back in less time than it took for my phone to give be a hip-buzz that a text came in. Total distraction: less than an itchy nose.

Unless they are intercepting the texts and snooping into them (4th amendment Violation right there) they have no way of telling if it was a hand-sent text, an automated reply, or if it was the driver or a passenger sending the text (although if you're alone in the car, they can rule out a passenger manning the phone, unless you can convince them that you carpool with Harvey, the invisible rabbit from the play of the same name).

I am from the "old school",where common sense was a lot more common than it is now.

I lived over 65 years without a cell phone,and seldom use the one I have now, which

was given to me by my grandson because he thought I needed it.

Obviously you have never been forced off the road by a texting driver,looking at the cell phone while drifting into your lane.

60 MPH is 88 Feet per second.

1/10 of a second can be the difference in a collision or a near collision.

I avoided a collision with a texting driver, by mere inches,so yes, 1/100 of a second can make a difference.

I do believe however,that Big Brother can go too far,such as storing everyone's emails,without a warrant,but texting while driving is like waving a loaded gun in public.

There is an imminent danger to people in the other lane.

A vehicle can be considered a multi-ton kinetic bomb,and it should be guided carefully and responsibly.

The computers on cars have a real time "black box" built in,and cell towers have a record of all calls,and the precise time of the calls,so linking a texting driver to an accident is already possible.

However,this is after the damage has been done,lives have been lost,families destroyed.

A method of preempting this is to be desired and accepted.

I do not wish for you to get into an accident because of a texting driver,but if you

ever have a very close call,your attitude may change.

distractions should be minimized for ALL drivers, not just evil teens. my entire point is about the "big brother" aspect. here in California there are areas you can't drive 15 minutes without running through intersections with "red light" cameras.just because I oppose the use of these doesn't mean I support the practice of running red lights. I've driven California freeways since 1975, usually driving trucks or service vans and have never had a collision. so some of the idiotic responses this thread has produced are just too "holier than thou". I'm a member of the real world, perfection is an unattainable goal but some might think that forcing nonsense laws on otherwise responsible people is a solution. I think its over the top.

scanning all passing cars so you can detect when someone presses "Enter"isn't going to protect anyone, its just another example of an electronic shakedown ......do you really want a government that engages in a practice like this?

Then use that as the point of an argument for your case.

There is certainly questionable legislation and practices all over the place. But legislation that is designed to prevent idiots from killing innocent victims is not "Big Brother", it is "civilization".

And this is why attorneys are vilified, and rightly so.

Lawyers are the most despised group in this country, and for good reason: they earned it. Sociopaths by any other name.

I am against this Big Brother concept as much as anyone, but the fact is it's here. There is no way I can see the USA banning any of this and in fact, I would suspect with all of the uproar about terrorism these days....maybe even increasing it. It's easy to see that the world is now a dangerous place. Maybe, just maybe....one of these Spying Eyes will spot more than just a texting driver.

Anyway, everybody on CR4 is still entitled to an opinion. That is what makes this place so unique.

....and that is what we as "everyday citizens" can discover.

Wanna' bet there is soooo much more that is being done?

Its a new world out there and the thought of some "isolated" person living in the old ways is something you might have to travel to New Guinea to find.

Drones over head, miles away, can snap a photo of you in your back yard . Those electronic dishes can let you hear your neighbors arguing inside their home. I was told that some police scanners can pick up conversations on a wireless "land line" phone ? ? ? My wife's van can be located almost anywhere in the USA....my old '78 Chevy truck can not..... Secure? Privacy? .. ... non-existent any longer.

I did not know about the mail....that is something new for me.

Look on the back of a first class mail envelope and you will see an orange bar code.

Ever wonder what that is for?

Canadian mail has them too,but a different color.

Both of the colors are fluorescent.

The orange Identification Code is printed on the back of envelopes for Remote ZIP Encoding (human ZIP Code readers contracted for the purpose). Each barcode uniquely identifies individual mail pieces and is applied to letter mail when high-speed sorters cannot correctly read address image information necessary to apply other routing and postage barcodes.

The physical mailpiece bearing the orange code remains at the mail processing center and the scanned image is sent to a Remote Encoding Center where human operators read the scanned image, key in the correct ZIP code information then send the info back to the originating mail center where it is matched with the envelope bearing the orange tag, so that the mailpiece can continue automated processing.

This is the method I referred to giving the ability to know date,time,sequential mail piece number of each mail piece,and through which machine the mail was put into the processing stream.

All mail pieces get this ID tag bar code, regardless of whether the image is resolved locally or remotely.

The remote coding operators do not key in the proper zip,they merely key what they see,and this information is processed by on-site computers and assigned the proper zip code (11 digit).

This result is ,as you stated,sent back to the origination site and stored for when the mail makes a second pass through the machine.

The image lifting and ID tag assignment allows the possible archive of all mail piece images,not just those that are remotely encoded.

A 3TB hard drive can store 3 billion images.

Imagine just one single RAID with 32ea. 3G hard drives.

Wonder how many RAIDs the government's new facility will hold?

And when configured in a large RAID,written in stripes the information is virtually

impossible to lose,due to CRC's, even if multiple drives fail or are removed ,and the

fact that only a single bit of each word of data is stored on each drive.

20th century privacy is now just a memory of the previous generation, and the

present and future generations will not know or miss.

"Resistance in futile." quote the BORG.

My girlfriend works at the Green Bay Wisconsin Hub, and yes it is traceable.

"A text message, phone call and data transfer emit different frequencies that can be distinguished by the device ComSonics is working on, according to McIntyre."

I call BS on this!

Phone calls and data transfer use different frequencies from each other, but text messages use the 'handshaking' signal the phones and the towers transmit back and forth. That is why there is the 140 character limit, that's the size of the 'reserved for future uses' block that was designed into the handshaking message.

That's also why I'm against charges per text message, the text messages but ZERO burden on the bandwidth or equipment, it would be like me adding a 'sunshine' surcharge to walk in front of my house because I told people they could work on their tans while traveling by.

Just noticed that the company making this got their start in Cable TV.

That explains the lack of 'but wait, there can be legitimate reasons that these frequencies could be used' thinking on their part.

Is there something about the cable TV industry that just robs people of any sense of Ethics, Decency, or Legality?

You'll never catch me getting a tan - I write software.

I suppose you eat a diet of 'Hot Pockets' too.

I've been hit twice by texters while stopped at a traffic light. Once destroyed my car, once just a scratch. Luckily both times nobody was injured. It really torques me off when I see people texting while driving, so I am for it, even though the thought of more government intrusion really bugs me.

I don't like the "big brother/ revenue collection" aspect of this, but these people, whether texting or talking, are a real hazard.

I think cars should be equipped with mini jammers that block signals when the car is in drive, but shut off when the car is in park, allowing calling and texting.

Small, cheap and easy.

http://www.cellphone-jammers.org/cigaretter-type-mini-cell-phone-signal-jammer-p-150.html

Build it right into the car:

http://www.cellphone-jammers.org/mini-portable-cell-phone-signal-jammer-p-152.html

do passengers get an exempt button or is texting that big of a problem that we need to go to this length to force compliance?

I'll admit, this is a tough call, but we're losing at least one young person a week, just in my area, due to talking or texting...not to mention that I personally witness these people every day, either hitting brakes or drifting all over hell as they deal with their stupid phones.

Unfortunately, the nanny state has given rise to a need for an increased nanny state, in some instances. People have so lost the instinct of common sense self preservation and survival, that when they're killing and maiming themselves and others, they look up and probably have no freaking concept of what's happening, or even that they are the cause.

Bottom line?

As a society, we are raising people to be so ignorant, clueless and stupid, and there are so many of them, that it requires a certain degree of "nannyism" just to prevent complete mayhem.

It sucks to think that not too long ago, kids could walk around with loaded guns and it wasn't a big deal...now they are considered children until they're 30.

...now they are considered children until they're 30

Yes, except they have the right to vote too.

no question its an issue, all of us have witnessed irresponsibility/stupidity.I just don't support this method for ensnaring those that text while in a car

I can't justify paying a cop $40 - $70 K a year to sit on the side of the road with a text busting gun, while waiting to retire at 50 and collect his/her pension for the rest of their lives.

There are better, less intrusive ways...but it's gotta stop.

"People have so lost the instinct of common sense self preservation and survival, that when they're killing and maiming themselves and others, they look up and probably have no freaking concept of what's happening, or even that they are the cause."

Looks like this gene pool could use some chlorine.

"It sucks to think that not too long ago, kids could walk around with loaded guns and it wasn't a big deal...now they are considered children until they're 30."

30? Heck, there are some STATES where is seems like the citizens act like and are treated as children their entire life, cradle to grave.

Here's a little something that made me laugh and I thought I share it with some of my friends who thinks using your cell phone and driving is ok.

Not that a cell phone had anything to do with it, but it is hilarious/

Tears are still running down my face.

Would have been even better if at the end, he recognized the guy getting beat up as the same guy he was leaving a message for.

I was just waiting for a punch line like that.

I hate texting. Its rediculously slow compared to talking.

But I think the text detector is a bad idea. Local municipalities are going to use it as a revenue enhancer. Even if it was a passenger doing the texting, you know there will still be a steady stream of out-of-state victims paying the ticket rather than arguing in court.

Plus, as a product, its a bad idea because it is already technically obsolete due to hands free systems and emerging self driving cars.