Driver caught using cell phone jamming device • Hacker News Board

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#111

Post by vacri » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:03 AM UTC

sukuriant wrote: post #97

JohnTHaller wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know there was a study and analysis a few years back that found the reason people are more distracted having a hands-free conversation in the car vs a conversation with someone next to them is that the person on the other end of a phone call doesn't have awareness to your situation. So, while someone talking with you while sitting next to you in the car will naturally quite down while a change in driving conditions…

That would make sense, too. In my own driving experience, most of the people that ride with me in the car in the front seat are of the mind "We're looking at the road", not "the driver is looking at the road, so I don't have to" as their general attitude; and when I've been under the weather, driving poorly, they've been the first to comment and require a fix to it. As for the phone, they're also the hands that will…

On a tangent, there seems to be an interesting difference in front-seat passengers who drive and those who don't. Often you'll see the drivers do a head-check with you as you approach an intersection. I have a few friends that don't drive, and I've never noticed any of them doing that subconscious check.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#112

Post by mhenr18 » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:09 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91

georgemcbay wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 difficul…

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.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#113

Post by stevekinney » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:16 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #110

Jtsummers wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine used to rant about cellphones in theaters, and thought theaters should install jammers (as in, he was actually surprised that none had done this yet). The fact is, they're a primary communication device for many people. Who knows when you might receive a call that you have to take (for certain jobs or with situations concerning family or friends), or when you need to make a phone call (see the Aurora…

If it's known that the theatre is a phone dead zone, you can step outside the theatre and make the call. If someone's having a heart attack, you have a whole theatre full of people that you can pull resources from. A car driving around is a secret dead zone that punishes you for being nearby, even if you're not transgressing any social norms or traffic laws. Sitting on a park bench nearby? Hell, even being a passenge…

I think the point was that if a theatre installed jammers, then patrons could not receive calls. Yea, I get that no one wants to overhear someone having a long chat with their significant other right as the plot line thickens, but a doctor on call or a parent who's kid is just got hurt at the baby sitter might appreciate being able to receive a call or text while their phone is on silent. They can then step out of the theatre in order to take the call or call back.

That said, I totally agree with you on your main point. This is often a counter argument when people suggest that mobile devices should be disabled when the car is in motion (which isn't necessarily the same thing as jamming). Often, when I'm driving, my wife is looking up directions or letting a family member know that we're near.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#114

Post by throwaway0010 » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:16 AM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #102

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't. There are accidents where even seconds matter and the effects of the jamming can mean the difference between life and death or even simply a shift in the a victim's odds. Or consider emergency services whose radios were affected: maybe paramedics were radioing in status updates to a hospital, or perhaps police officers were in the middle of receiving an Amber alert. Or, imagine that he's injured in an accide…

A friend of mine used to rant about cellphones in theaters, and thought theaters should install jammers (as in, he was actually surprised that none had done this yet). The fact is, they're a primary communication device for many people. Who knows when you might receive a call that you have to take (for certain jobs or with situations concerning family or friends), or when you need to make a phone call (see the Aurora…

But some theaters DO block cellphones -- by encasing the venue in a faraday cage. It's possible to buy paint with metallic bits to block radio.

Broadcasting to jam is illegal. It is not illegal to build a room in which cellphones do not work, nor should it be.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#115

Post by Jtsummers » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:27 AM UTC

stevekinney wrote: post #113

vacri wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's known that the theatre is a phone dead zone, you can step outside the theatre and make the call. If someone's having a heart attack, you have a whole theatre full of people that you can pull resources from. A car driving around is a secret dead zone that punishes you for being nearby, even if you're not transgressing any social norms or traffic laws. Sitting on a park bench nearby? Hell, even being a passenge…

I think the point was that if a theatre installed jammers, then patrons could not receive calls. Yea, I get that no one wants to overhear someone having a long chat with their significant other right as the plot line thickens, but a doctor on call or a parent who's kid is just got hurt at the baby sitter might appreciate being able to receive a call or text while their phone is on silent. They can then step out of th…

Thanks, receiving calls is really the big one for me. I know a lot of people working in fields requiring them to be on call 24x7 unless they're on leave. A 2 hour delay in calling back is just barely tolerable for most of them, and unacceptable for some. It'd suck to have to stop enjoying something outside a couple vacations a year because some people are inconsiderate and other people can't tune them out.

That said, making calls to emergency services, if you have to run outside to make that call, you've lost 30 seconds or a couple minutes. And you can't follow their directions in aiding the person because you're outside, and the victim(s) are inside. That's assuming it's not an attacker who would prevent you from leaving in the first place.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#116

Post by tcheard » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:28 AM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #59

jablan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is not only logical, but also an answer to lots of other problems: ditch the car-centric culture and move these people out from their cars to buses, trains, trams, bicycles and other forms of sustainable transport. It's not that hard, takes some time getting used to, but will do good to all of us.

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 driv…

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.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#117

Post by Jtsummers » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:31 AM UTC

throwaway0010 wrote: post #114

Jtsummers wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine used to rant about cellphones in theaters, and thought theaters should install jammers (as in, he was actually surprised that none had done this yet). The fact is, they're a primary communication device for many people. Who knows when you might receive a call that you have to take (for certain jobs or with situations concerning family or friends), or when you need to make a phone call (see the Aurora…

But some theaters DO block cellphones -- by encasing the venue in a faraday cage. It's possible to buy paint with metallic bits to block radio. Broadcasting to jam is illegal. It is not illegal to build a room in which cellphones do not work, nor should it be.

I'll make the claim that I've not noticed reception issues in theaters in at least the last 5 years. My use-case is typically texting (usually with the other members of my group, things like "Hey, I'm on the 5th row up") though, but even then I usually see 2+ bars, sufficient for voice calls.

My apartment has worse reception than that (I can make calls from my sunroom, nowhere else).

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#118

Post by nkurz » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:38 AM UTC

mhenr18 wrote: post #112

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 difficul…

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…

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!

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#119

Post by yaddayadda » Thu, May 01, 2014, 2:41 AM UTC

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #79

incision wrote: post #6

Certainly a terrible idea on every level, but I can't help but sympathize with the intent. Too much of the public simply aren't responsible about driving and there doesn't seem to be any good way to identify and prevent or penalize them for it.

I can't. There are accidents where even seconds matter and the effects of the jamming can mean the difference between life and death or even simply a shift in the a victim's odds. Or consider emergency services whose radios were affected: maybe paramedics were radioing in status updates to a hospital, or perhaps police officers were in the middle of receiving an Amber alert. Or, imagine that he's injured in an accide…

Not a hypothetical for me.

More than a few years ago, I was a manager at a hotel. As such there were several days each month when I had the emergency pager (yep, pager). The only time I ever got a 911 on the darn thing was while I was in the middle of a movie. I've never booked out of a movie theater so fast! I called back to the hotel to find out a fire alarm in a crawl space had triggered.

In the end it was just a loose wire in the actual alarm system, but obviously we didn't know it at the time. And thankfully, the movie staff had seen me in my haste, so when I returned several hours later, they were kind enough to let me watch the next showing of the movie for free.

Re: Driver caught using cell phone jamming device

#120

Post by neil1 » Thu, May 01, 2014, 3:00 AM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #117

throwaway0010 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some theaters DO block cellphones -- by encasing the venue in a faraday cage. It's possible to buy paint with metallic bits to block radio. Broadcasting to jam is illegal. It is not illegal to build a room in which cellphones do not work, nor should it be.

I'll make the claim that I've not noticed reception issues in theaters in at least the last 5 years. My use-case is typically texting (usually with the other members of my group, things like "Hey, I'm on the 5th row up") though, but even then I usually see 2+ bars, sufficient for voice calls. My apartment has worse reception than that (I can make calls from my sunroom, nowhere else).

You can buy and install a cellphone extender for your house.