To Thwart Distracted Driving, US Government Considers Cell Phone Jammers in Cars

Good god.. So people in the passenger and back seat can't talk on a cell either. Give me a break.

5500 people is not many in the grand scheme of things.

Finally! Had this idea over a year ago. Too many idiots on the road anymore. The only way to keep people safe is to restrict what they are allowed to do while driving.

I'm not so sure. For the passengers this really inhibits a lot. Then what happens if you're in an accident, are off on the side of the road and stuck in your car? With no one around to help, how are you going to call for help?

I'm sure we have the tech to disable cell phones in the driver's seat and not other seats. Just two or so very short range jammers would do the trick, one by the driver's head and one in the seat or behind the steering wheel. It is more that most people aren't paying attention and don't have the self-control to restrict their use while they are driving. I send short texts at stop lights on occasion, but I blew a tire once because I was texting while driving. Will never do that again. I have had friends that got in accidents just by looking down to change the station on the radio. Also, with more cars on the road, it takes more attention than it used to in order to prevent accidents.

Personally I would be fine with this, I am making reasonable assumption that the jamming technology stops when the car is stationary or turned off (i.e., if I need to make a call, I should be able to pull over or park and make a call without having to step out of my car).

5,500 deaths a year is smaller than other death tolls, but I don't see the inconvenience being too taxing. The passengers in the car would just have to wait to send/receive a call, or pull the car over to make the call or check voicemail if it's that important.

An alternative to fitting call jamming technology is to fit hands free technology, or fit both so that what you're really preventing is texting, which is what I think causes most of the problem right?

Im all for not texting while driving, but Im not for the goverment forcing jammers into our cars.

People will still find ways to get in accidents. And im sure alot of nerds will go in an disable the jammers anyway.

Simply put, it's not the government's place to do this. Cars are machinery and will always cause death and injury when used improperly. Back when seat belts first came out, the tried to legislate it and it failed. Only when they launched an educational campaign several years long did they have an impact. Now that voluntary seatbelt use is at 70% or higher, they are legislating it again and trumping it as a victory.

Taking it a step further, I have a screaming child in the back in a carseat. When are they going to outlaw screaming children? What about drinking coffee? What about eating cheeseburgers? What about???? Where do they stop?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Freedom and an adherence to Christian values and principles made this country great.

This is too far and should not be the responsibility of our government. Our money should be spent teaching common sense. What happens when someone is attacked in the car and can't call 911 or in a car accident for that matter? What will this lead to... banning people from driving all together... Let this happen first thing I do is pull out the fuse.

too much government in my life for my taste.

Better yet, why not make bluetooth technology standard in all vehicles? Perhaps, increase safety standards? As long as actual people are piloting these cars, there are going to be accidents. People are going to eat and drive; you can't make a cheeseburger jammer.

Ok so I will be rich because I don’t have Onstar and the next time I’m in an accident and need to call 911 but my phone doesn’t work I can sue the Fed Gov. or my relatives can.

This is just a continuation of the NANNY STATE mentality.
You don’t have to worry about the consequences of your own actions because Uncle Sam will just idiot proof things for you at the expense of personal freedoms.

Alright, I have had it with this total turn toward dictatorship. Next they'll be telling us what we can eat and who we can speak to. Yes distracted driving is an issue, but disabling phones in cars? What if there is an emergency or as someone else pointed out you're the passenger? How about doctors or off duty officers or emergency repair people? They have to be able to be contacted no matter if they're in a vehicle or not. Avoiding distracted driving is the reason we have hands free sets or speakerphones. I'm sorry, but even using technology to disable them isn't going to help. I may not know jack about hacking, but even I'm smart enough to know that people would find ways around it. Besides if we start giving up our freedoms one at a time then eventually we won't have any left.

Okay, rant over. I'm getting off my soapbox now.

The Dome Diva
All the world is a stage and I get to play with it.

The more technology advances the dumber humans get...numerous studies have shown that driving while on the cell phone is as dangerous as being drunk yet civil libraterians and republicans cry fowl as an intrusion of 'big' government controlling peoples lives...I agree...lets get rid of the DUI laws while we are at it and give my you home addresses so that I can get plastered and drive up and down your streets in celebration.

In case you are wondering...I lost a close friend when a highschool girl got distracted sending a text while driving and crossed the center line and hit him head on...don't dare tell me that 5500 is an exceptable number

NO law can fix stupid. By the way, just to make waves. How many people get up in arms about the church trying to legislate morality, AND YET no one has a problem with this massive invasion of that evil dirty word "PERSONAL RESPONISIBLITY".... no no its the governments job to make sure your arent a feakin idiot. Let's just cut to chase government, and put everyone in a padded room and only give them healthy food. No Mcdonalds and No cell phones. You're to stupid to know whats good for you.

caradoc01 every death is unacceptable, but I'll be damned if I willingly give up my freedom for the sake of security.

Great more government regulation so happy. Everybody will just disable thiscrap anyhow.guess people can't call 911 in emergencies. This is for the driver to decide not the gov!

caradoc01, don't bitch about what happened, chances are your "friend" was driving one of those "environmentally sensitive" cars that were made in Japan, Buy American FULL size vehicles, support our economy and live long and prosper! Laws of physics never change, size Does matter.

Honestly, this is an invasion of your constitutional rights. If anything, give out tickets to drivers who are on their cellphones, or develop technology that allows you to use your cellphone hands free... oh wait, it is available and usually comes with a new phone. Now, what happens to a person trapped in a car and the only way they can communicate, or call for help... is by cellphone. This will not pass.. it will piss off too many people. More people still die from drunk driving a year, or are killed by drunk drivers. Alcohol is still very very legal.

@jacobm

So should we ban radios to?

Listen to your Government, they know best!

I mean... just look at how well the MVA is run... That's going to your Health Care provider too soon!

And I'm sure that ancestors of Geronimo, Cochise, Chato (just to name a few) would also agree with you!

Just give them total control and total submission, hand over all your choice, and freedom... They will protect you! And most certainly in the event of oh, alien invasion or a giant meteor -- ya know, something catastrophic... they will be the FRIST to say "Hey! Duck and cover!"

This is how you know we live in a free country! This is America! There’s no secrets.

I'm replying to the following:

"Good god.. So people in the passenger and back seat can't talk on a cell either. Give me a break.

There has to be a way around it. Otherwise--- I TOTALLY SUPPORT IT.
The last time I checked at the Dept Of Motor Vehicles
you're licensed to DRIVE, Not Yack on the phone!
Now HANG UP AND DRIVE!!!!!!

-------------------
I'm not so sure. For the passengers this really inhibits
a lot. Then what happens if you're in an accident, are off
on the side of the road and stuck in your car? With no one around to help, how are you going to call for help?

That arguement will Not hold up in court even if you went
in there chopped-up and bleeding!
Who and What caused the accident in the first place?
Someone YACKIN on their damn cel phone while driving!
On the side of the road STUCK inside your car?
Your Will to Live will NOT allow you to sit there going "Duuuh, I'm stuck inside the car"...
Grab a hard object and smash the window so you can
climb out!
KICK THE WINDOWS BROKEN AND GEEEET OOOOOUT!!!
YOUR LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN YER STUPID CAR.
or would You rather "not ruin the paintjob" and
"spare yourself a Repair bill".....Am I Right?
An engine fire breaks out, the flames comin at you,
but you'd rather sit there and not wreck your own rosey tinted windows to get outta there... AM I RIGHT?!

----------
YOU FOLKS NEVER CONSIDERED THESE SITUATIONS BEFORE.
NOW YOU WANNA CRY OUT ALL THESE STUPID EXCUSES SO YOU CAN YACK ON THE PHONE WHILE DRIVING.
YOU JUST WANNA YACK ON YER PHONES, YOU DON'T CARE!
UNTIL AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS TO YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES,
THEN YOU'LL BE ON TV CRUSADING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS
A LAW YOU BROKE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

...Jeeeezus, How much more SoOopid does Society wanna Be!!!

zozo-Magengar

@ Magengar

How about we attached breathalyzers to all vehicles. DUI kills more people annually then cell phones.

While we are at it…

How about a mandatory eye exam before the ignition starts?

How about blood screening to test for drug levels (including prescription drugs and over the counter that impede your ability such as Benadryl)?

How about a 20 minute sleepy test too to make sure you are awake and alert?

How about blood pressure gauges so that you can’t drive upset?

How about eye monitors so if you’re crying and can’t see the car shut down?

While we’re at it lets add x-ray machines that test bone density to verify age so that no one under legal age and say… no one over say 85 can drive?

Get a grip, its not the Government's place. They already impose on damn near all freedoms. Don’t encourage them.

What I think is funny here is that people still think technology is the answer. Yes, we can scramble cell signals, but is this necessarily going to resolve the problem.

How long does it take people to crack iPhones? How long do you really think it will take before someone cracks these signal scramblers.

20 years ago, even if someone knew how to crack it, that knowledge was limited to how far they could spread it by word of mouth. Today, once someone cracks the scrambler, or figures out any other way to disable it, its going to be on the internet soon after, probably on youtube with easy to follow instructions on how to do it yourself.

I also think its funny that people automatically assume a 1-to-1 reduction in distracted driving and/or accidents caused by such just by passing a law or putting scramblers in a car. Truth is, a distracted driver is so by nature, not by what they have in the car. Take away the cell phone, food and drink, radio, and other people in the car and they still will find something to be distracted with. Whats next, outlaw daydreaming while driving? Require all vehicles to be single passenger (i.e. driver only)? Require all roadways to have walls constructed to obscure the view of buildings, people, and billboards such that there is nothing to look at but boring concrete?

Bottom line. America has been great because we were given freedom. Look how the entire world has changed because of our example. Freedom is what made America great. Any day we sign away that freedom we guarantee that America won't be as great today as it was the day before.

@rodion

I think making a joke about how @caradoc01's friend lost his life is a bit low, please my friend, let's have a debate without insulting the dead.

It better shut off if a collision is detected.

Brilliant! Who ever needs to call 911 from the car anyway, right?

Whats to keep people from turning off the jammer. Probably just have to take out a fuse.

This brings up a ton of concerns. First lets look at the cost of incorporating these things into every car in America? Who is going to pay for that? Requiring manufactures to incorporate it in all new cars will only make the used car market swell, grinding new car purchases to a halt. Secondly, if we are going to seriously take a look at traffic related deaths; let’s start with putting a breathalyzer in every car. In 2008, there were 13,846 alcohol related traffic fatalities in the United States alone. My third and final point, what happens in the event of an accident and I am trapped inside my car but can't dial out for help. I know people have brought to light that the device might become inoperable while the car is stationary or stopped, however a traffic accident is a pretty violent event. What happens when you are trapped inside your car and unable to dial out for help?
The fact of the matter is driving is a privilege that people view as a right. In other countries around the world there are barriers to the privilege, including higher associated fees and long term mandatory training courses. I realize that in most of America, a car is necessary because our national public transportation infrastructure is simply inadequate; and because Americans by and large simply love the freedom associated with owning & operating their own vehicle.
My point is simply that the money required for placing these devices in every car in America be better invested elsewhere?

Um, yeah. Passengers. Sounds like someone important forgot that there are sometimes passengers. Not every car on the road is a single-seater SUV. = P Assholes.

Wow! I can't believe some of the ridiculous reasons and weird analogies people are coming up with to shut this thing down. It further enforces my belief that we are truly a country of idiots. This is a technology, when properly researched and implemented, could save "5500 lives a year and prevent more than 500,000 injuries." If that's not motivation enough then how about the money we Americans would save in taxes from damages to infrastructure due to these accidents.

To say this infringes on constitutional rights is insane, the constitution was not drafted during a time when this technology could not even be fathomed and furthermore the constitution is near meaningless in todays government as they continue to take advantage of the constitution's vagueness. Drinking while driving is not an argument because they have breathalysers that attach to the automobiles ignition to prevent the intoxicated from powering the car. I have nothing to say about the food argument because it is the dumbest reason on this page. The only contention on this page that makes the most sense would be 911 emergency calls, find a way around that, and I would have no problems with them making this mandatory.

I don't want to turn in anyway towards the Tea Party, but I refuse to allow them to decide whether or not I can use my own phone in my own car. I don't text or talk while driving and I don't condone it. However, I do check my phone to see if it's important. Instead of disabling phones while driving (for which I can see more than 2 BETTER alternatives than a localized jammer), I would have them integrate phones into the car more directly. Let the system decide whether or not a call is urgent. Display text messages on the windshield, but don't let you respond. If the call is an emergency, flash as such and make you pull over until you can call back.

Jakert is correct when he says it's not our Constitutional right to not have a phone jammer in our cars and all his examples back that up. The government has the right to make our lives safer and the safer they are, the more freedoms we give up. It's a balance. HOWEVER, there are alternatives to these safety policies that are more abusable, but don't restrict us. At least try them before you let them get more strict about it. On top of that, deaths by cell phone distraction are far less than many other automobile accidents or more generally, a lot of other causes of death. (Not that it's our government's job to stop us from dying, just dying at the hands of another) Let them work on something more important. Peace out.

To Americans: Maker better cars so people don't die from a crash.

To people: Buy German cars to survive accidents.

To Government: Fund more research to make driving automated so there won't be a need for a driver and all the reckless drivings issues will be eradicated. Then you can drink and drive. and you can browse on the internet all while driving.
Isn't Google working on this? Didn't they travel from Europe to China without a human driver.

@jakert00

Way to just blindly pave over all the arguments against this without giving any coherent rebuttals.

" the constitution was not drafted during a time when this technology could not even be fathomed and furthermore the constitution is near meaningless in todays government "

Excuse me? The constitution is near meaningless? I'm sorry but I'm not about to throw out my bill of rights. Ideas like freedom of speech do not become dated because we have new technology. Our rights are founded in the idea that can live free of the unjust persecution of government. It's "vagueness" as you say is the reason it can remain relevant today, it wouldn't have lasted long if they wrapped everything around the tech of the day.

"Drinking while driving is not an argument because they have breathalysers that attach to the automobiles ignition to prevent the intoxicated from powering the car."

It *is* an argument, because while this breathalysers starting has been discussed, it is not a law. And logically due to the larger number of deaths caused by drunk driving, that law should be considered before we even talk about this one. And how many checks do you want to go through to start your care, see "ThisNameIsTaken"'s comment above.

" I have nothing to say about the food argument because it is the dumbest reason on this page."

Why is it the dumbest? It is a distraction, so is fiddling with the radio, talking with friends, looking at the scenery, checking your speedometer, checking the time, each which can quote 'take your eyes of the road for several seconds' which all these anti-texting while driving ads say texting does to you.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm anti-texting and driving, but we've got enough fricken laws without me having to worry about the government pulling the puppet strings of my life

yea, the drivers aren't the only ones who use the phones.

How do I get one of these cell phone blockers with a radius sufficient to snuff out any cell phone within earshot, a theater, or my classroom? The sooner everyone around me pays attention to the real world happening around them, the happier I (and they) will be.

Unplug.

@jakert00,

The article states, "More than 5,500 people were killed last year by distracted drivers, and another 500,000 were injured."

Note: DISTRACTED DRIVERS--not necessarily drivers who were using their cellphone--and out of those USING their cellphone, how many were talking on a hands-free device?

Cellphones are not the only distraction available to drivers... and not even the most common distraction.

Where is the proof that preventing cellphones as a distraction would not simply cause distracted drivers to find new distractions (like billboards, or hotties on the sidewalk, or cool looking clouds, or impressive buildings, or songs on the radio, or dry contact lenses, or their passengers?)

Have you ever heard LaHood talk about this topic? He sounds like a complete D-bag and gets aggressive and bullies anyone who questions his reasoning without giving any explanation to his views.

He acts like he sat on a cactus and was too anally retentive to take it out afterwards.

Lot's of things are "cognitive distractions"--thinking about work, talking to your passenger, listening to an audio-book, etc.

I don't see how talking on a hands-free device is ANY different from talking to a passenger.

Sure, I agree, staring at your lap while you text, or trying to shift and turn with one hand because you are holding the cell-phone are more dangerous than talking to a passenger--but there is NO reason that hands-free cell phone calls are more dangerous.

This is how democrats end up screwing themselves over--instead of pointing out how they protect your civil liberties and protect your rights and freedoms they belittle the voters with stupid nanny-state ideas like banning salt and banning cellphones... and then act surprised when republicans win...

Government should stick to protecting people from entities that dump toxic chemicals into rivers... not from other adults who talk on their cellphone with a hands-free device while sitting in traffic.

Hey, Editors, why would you remove my previous comments that express personal opinion, in non vulgar form, is it because you are democrats?

5,474 deaths last year due to avoidable distractions.
995 of those deaths were undisputedly due to distraction by a cell phone.

448,000 injuries last year due to avoidable distractions.
89,600 injuries last year undisputedly due to distraction by a cell phone.

I think the dead and injured should have a say in this too.

I understand having a political point of view. But it's useless and leads to gridlock. So rather than calling the other side a name, just remember that lives are at stake here. Actual lives. Lives that are being lost every day.

Politics aside, let's answer the main question. Is cell phone jamming the way to go and, IF NOT, then what? I think jamming is the way to go. Sure it's inconvenient, but so is being a widow. So is being a 7 year old that now has to grow up without a mommy or daddy.

So which problem is so much bugger that we can't live with it? No cell phone signal while our car is on? Or thousands of lives lost and thousands more lives yet to be lost?

If not jammers, then what? And let's act soon too.

Freedom to make choices instead of being forced to do something. You want one of those jammers? Then install it on your own vehicle and don't force me to do it! Otherwise I'll come up with something that i like and will force you to do it too! Ban condoms, they kill millions a year!

@rodion

I'm not sure what I said to offend you. Yes, I think cell phone jammers is a good idea. And for people that value driving and talking on the phone at the same time more than they value the lives of people they'd mow down otherwise, I think they should be able to get a car that has built-in hands free dialing/answering. There are lots of inexpensive cars with hands-free phone options and they don't require a cell phone plan. They work with existing phones. So, cars in the future should either have a jammar or a hands-free phone option.

Yea, just want I want, a government scanner in my car.

I agree that talking on a cell phone is a problem and we do need to find a solution to stop these stupid deaths. But a government scanner im my car is not a solution.

Why don't we just make driving and talking, and more importantly TEXTING illegal while driving. If you get caught you have to pay an insane fine and maybe take a class - kinda like drunk driving. This makes more sense than a goverment program for scanners. WTF

I don't think that anyone is really against banning the driver from talking while driving.
Fine, make that a law, but don't outlaw my carpool partners from calling. Or, what about our Mi-Fi mobile hotspot during the commute.
What about the accidents that I see from time to time? Can I call about that?

@jmorgan702, I actually agree with what you're saying. A little perturbed that you said 'WTF' at the end. I'm really not trying to offend anyone here and I'm at a loss for the animosity I'm receiving. But yes, I agree. I don't actually want a jammer in my car either. I have a power adapter wired to my vehicle so when my wife is driving I can get on the laptop and connect via a T-Mobile card to the internet. @pablo_max, I don't want to lose my mobile hotspot either, but I'm willing to do it if we can't find a better idea.

I defer in opinion - I think - because I don't view phone service in a car as a freedom. I view it more as a luxury. Obviously, a lot of people see it as a freedom. Otherwise, we wouldn't be discussing this. And honestly, I don't want a jammer in my car. I'm just willing to live with one if it saves thousands of lives.

sorry. typo. meant to say "differ", not "defer".

150,000 people die from obesity each year. Time to ban fast food and trans-fats! Also, you should by law have to exercise at least 2 hours a day, if you do not log in your exercise time card, (which is monitored by the bureau of run each aspect of your life and we know what is better for you than you), you shall receive a hefty $500.00 ticket. Hmm.. I still think selling burgers will make more money.

@alias007 according to your statistics.. less than 20% of the allotted deaths from distractions are linked to cellphones? Correct me if I am wrong... but it seems like the less than 1,000 people who actually die from this per year... isn't really that big of an issue. You can do what ever you want, there will always be car accidents, people will always die, and people will always make the wrong decision. I don't mean everyone, but a lot of people will no matter what. Also, what does this mean for all the older cars? I mean.. the government obviously can't afford to put a jammer in the millions of cars that are already on the roads with out one of these things for free... so what are they going to charge us? It just seems like a political distraction from real issues.. I hope this doesn't catch much attention from the mainstream media.. this is as stupid as arguing abortion or same sex marriage... Want to save lives... create education programs that prove the dangers, not just teach the dangers of texting or talking while driving.

Also, we should ban, eating, looking at your GPS, talking to passengers in the car, listening to the radio, adjusting your mirrors, adjusting your seat, doing anything while driving at the same time.. just to be sure we save more lives. The more restrictions you place on people, no matter how minute, you slowly take away the very essence of what it is to be a human being with free will and eventually, you are just an animal being herded along through life, following a system you are programmed to believe in.

@itseasyas123,

You're talking about the effect of a person's actions on one's own body. I'm talking about the effect a person's actions on other people bodies.

The obese make bad decisions that harm their own body.
Careless drivers make bad decisions that harm others.

The two are not comparable.

@alias007 So then, to support my argument.. Shouldn't we ban the fast food corporations for knowingly selling food product that is very low quality, loaded with sodium, trans-fats, and a world of preservatives? The knowingly harm peoples bodies... do they not? It is no different than the person on the phone, the know for a fact that they are less focused on driving when on the phone and so does the person driving next to them. The same way the producer of the good and the consumer know this all in the same. So you tell me, who is doing more damage to society?

@itseasyas123,

That was one study. Another study puts cell phone related deaths much higher - at 2500 deaths per year.

I'm not saying we need to put these in existing cars. Everything should be done during manufacturing to keep costs down.

I'm also not saying you can't eat, look at GPS, talk to passengers, etc... Just holding a phone to your ear or texting.

And I'm pretty sure that not being able to talk on the phone while in your car is not the same thing as being a herded animal.

Nanny state strikes again. I swear if our government spent as much time cleaning up its own messes as it does trying to tell me how to run my life we might be ok. This has to be the dumbest idea ever! For the millionth time the answer to people's stupidity is not to BAN everything! There are those of us smart enough to wear a bluetooth headset while behind the wheel. So what happens when you have an emergency and need your phone, or when someone is trying to contact you because of an emergency? I guess you are just screwed right? I as a responsible driver shouldn't have to suffer because of someone else's irresponsibility. And "What if they hit you because they are on the phone" is moot. To take away my freedom because someone else is abusing their's is ridiculous.

I won't be buying a car with a cell phone jamming device in it. The best way to keep this technology out of cars is to speak with your wallet. They can install all the cell phone jammers they want, and those cars can sit right on the dealership lot for as long as they are installed. We don't have to put up with this crap. But if we run out and buy it, then they'll be moving right along to the next restriction they can dream up. You can't give an inch. Don't believe me, just ask any frequent flyers. First no liquids over a certain amount, then its take your shoes off, now its pat downs and invasive body scans. We'll be flying naked by the time they are done. If people heavily started using other modes of transportation they'd have no choice but to stop this foolishness. Same thing with this proposed jamming device.

@itseasyas123 "shouldn't we ban?"

No. I thought I was concise the first time. But sure, why not...

Fast food restaurants do not cause obesity. People choose to have an unhealthy lifestyle and it effects people only internally.

Cell phone usage has an external effect. It affects people that have nothing to do with another person's decision. If John Doe chooses to text while driving and someone dies because of that, that person's death was an external effect of John's decision.

Now, you may be saying 'well, the fast food's decision to serve fattening and unhealthy food has an external affect on John Doe's health.' But that's not fair, because John chose to eat it. It was a mutual agreement between the two parties.

For you to be right, the person that died because of John Doe's decision to text while driving would have to have made a mutual agreement with John to die as a result. Clearly, that's not what I'm saying.

@alias007

I am only using extreme examples to prove a point. It is something that slowly happens. You slowly take away rights, and slowly people become more acceptable to them. And my point with food, GPS, etc.. these are just other distractions that happening, are just as distracting as being on the phone. If you are going to jam phones, you need to ban everything. I would say, look further into this. See who would potentially be manufacturing these jammers and who will be profiting from them. I bet you will quickly find a lot of backs being scratched here. This isn't about saving a few thousand lives, that honestly, in todays world.. with the population booming, really isn't all that bad. It will be about making a huge profit. Don't be a fool.

@alias007

So people who get into cars... which are potentially lethal.. are not agreeing that they could potentially die at any given second while driving.. no matter the circumstance? You want to save more lives... obligate people of the age 50 and older to take a driving and perception test every 5 years. Seriously... you are in a lethal vehicle no matter what... thousands upon thousands of people are going to die from cars regardless if you jam a cellphone or not. Just like people did before cellphones even existed. This is someone making a profit through lobbying, or at least making an attempt. Think about the millions of cars that will have this device in them.. That is billions of dollars. So, billions of dollars to save 2500 hundred potential people? Sounds pretty redundant.

@alias007

So people who get into cars... which are potentially lethal.. are not agreeing that they could potentially die at any given second while driving.. no matter the circumstance? You want to save more lives... obligate people of the age 50 and older to take a driving and perception test every 5 years. Seriously... you are in a lethal vehicle no matter what... thousands upon thousands of people are going to die from cars regardless if you jam a cellphone or not. Just like people did before cellphones even existed. This is someone making a profit through lobbying, or at least making an attempt. Think about the millions of cars that will have this device in them.. That is billions of dollars. So, billions of dollars to save 2500 hundred potential people? Sounds pretty redundant.

I think it's funny so many of you are freaking out about this. Did you know it's illegal to talk on your cell phone without a hands free device in some states already? OH NO!!! GASP!!!!!

And stop and think. Yes, the device will prohibit cell phones from operating WHILE THE VEHICLE IS TURNED ON. How on EARTH can a signal jammer operate with no power source, i.e. your vehicle? And I'm fairly confident there will be some sort of trip switch that when the car shifts into park, ta-daaa, jammer deactivated!

Also, about these "hackers." Yes, some people will do that. How many? Well, how many people in the USA know anything about computer repair? Car modification? Not many, because if they did, the Geek Squad and every car shop in the nation would take a serious hit. Yet they are in business, indicating that they are profitable, indicating that people need their services, indicating that people don't know how to do said services themselves for the most part.

And finally, for those of you who don't think that 5,500 people are worth it, wait until a member of your family gets turned into an interesting stain on the highway because they got hit head on by a texting teenager. We have legislation for things a lot fewer people have died from that has impacted us a lot more, I'm sure.

The comments on this article interestingly show what has evolved to be the two most dominant forms of thought. The ones willing to take a rational amount of risk for a rational amount of independance. And the ones who are willing to give freedom up for the promise of safety. If only you can give up enough freedom then you will be safe from all things.

Is the risk assessment for cell phone usage dangerous enough statistically speaking to forcibly jam their use? Not to me, but to some. A more rational approach might be argued to raise fines for the usage, and let people then use their own risk/ reward assessment. It does affect others but that can be argued about anything, everything. Where does it stop is the debate I think we are having. What amount of freedom is reasonable to give up for what amount of safety, and how do we know that the promise of safety will turn into a reality of safety.

It does seem we are being purposely dumbed down. Conditioned to only accept the views of an "expert" as worthy rather than our own thoughts. for simple things that would have only been common sense a hundred years ago we struggle.

I wanted to hear everyone else's viewpoints on the matter and instead I was often taken out of context and placed on the defensive. That's not fair to me and it's not a good way to come to a clear consensus.

Do you want me to "come around"? Would you prefer that I share your opinion? If so, this is not the way to go about convincing me. Instead, I'm left with the impression that I was the only one trying to be civil.

What a great idea.... if you get in a car crash, trapped in the car, and no one around, you can also just not call for help on ur cellphone you happen to have on you! Or if you get kid napped and stuffed in trunk or back seat and also not call for help from there when you just happen to have a cellphone on you!

It's just brilliant! no calling for help when in need!

Just in case no one notice for some reason that I wasn't being sarcastic, then now i'm telling you!

Bottom line, its an idea at preventing deaths and injuries which is a lot better than most people on this page has offered. Magengar, Americano, and vladdek, you people are wonderful, I appreciate you ability for intelligent, thought provoking conversation.

NO, I will not and shall not be part of that.. and would immediately remove it if it were installed in a vehicle I purchased.

Make it illegal for the vehicle operator to use one while operating (driving) the vehicle = some paperwork, money maker, WIN

Installing "jammers" would cost money, and force more radio frequency pollution into my head, they are also illegal per FCC rules = F U LaHood! Go have a meeting with the EFF before making any other statements or having any more genius ideas such as this one ._.

6,500 people a year in the United States drown. Let's ban swimming!

I love these analogies that are not at all analogous. And by 'love', I mean 'love how it makes me laugh at'.

Simply put, this will never happen. Really Popsci?

So many of the comments about this story really make me laugh. As someone else pointed out, the analogies that some have made are completely ridiculous.

Unlike cell phones, food has always been around and people have and will eat in cars. Unlike cell phones, swimming has been a pastime forever and people have and will continue to drown.

People seem to forget that cell phones are a technology that is rather new in the scheme of things. Some have posted, "Oh, but how will I call 911 if I am in an accident or stuffed in the trunk of a car during a hijacking?" How did you deal with an accident 15 years ago - before everyone had a cell phone? This modern day technology has afforded us a lot of conveniences and even saved lives by giving us the ability to make those 911 calls - the question is, do cell phones and cars together create more accidents or save more lives.

No doubt this proposed cell phone jamming will go nowhere but it gives me a good laugh to hear what some people have to say about it. I think the money would be better spent on improving education for our children based on some of these comments. What has happened to common sense?

A federal mandate on this piece of equipment would be outrageous, unprecedented, and would likely be struck down as unconstitutional. Implementation would likely be a voluntary measure, ie. you don't want your teenage daughter texting while driving so you opt-in before buying the vehicle. I'm seriously troubled that many of you would actually support a federal mandate for such equipment. This pervasive sophomoric liberalism is a terrible affront to the basic principles of American liberty.

Cars will never be safer until the drivers' behavior is corrected. Jam their phones and they will still be inattentive and careless. If they really want safer driving, they should work on computer autopilots.

Every opinion on here can be boiled down to a single question. Is the use of a cell phone in a car a luxury or a freedom?

If you think it's a luxury, it's a no-brainer because it saves lives.

If you think it's a freedom, it's a no-brainer because the government should never take away any of our freedoms.

We're having such an overly complicated debate about this and it's really just a simple question.

Is it a luxury or is it a freedom?

Regardless of which side you're on, nobody should be appalled by the other person's viewpoint. Both sides are a logical conclusion based on an answer to that simple question.

That's messed up The government is controlling us loveliest watch out kids dadie is making sure your free will is suppressed goooooo freedom (out the window)

Hm. Very good points are made on both sides of this argument in this thread. The thing is, none of you are really rationalizing the situation. Believe me when I say I'm the last person to jump to conspiracy conclusions every second I get, but there is something far more fishy here than cell phone jammers.

While I do believe it's a real issue up for debate, implementing this technology any time soon would be incredibly difficult, expensive, and unorganized. It's nothing to fret over. Especially when taking into consideration the fact that public technology, for now, still surpasses the government's ability to keep up with its uses. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if cell phone manufacturers came up with a solution well before the government. The whole issue will most likely self deflate.

This is just a way to get people all roused up and distracted. Look in the news, what did the government fuck up lately? Typically useless debates to get completely up in arms over, especially ones that can cause people to feel their personal freedoms are being attacked, usually serve as some kind of distraction from a greater issue they don't want much public light on.

I could be wrong too. I have no problem with that. I'm just saying, don't be surprised if there's something else not getting as much coverage that would piss us off so much that we band together on it as a unit instead of fighting each other.

Stupid idea on multiple levels. For those who think that the driver could be jammed but not passengers I say STUPID. If that were the case I would only need to place the cell phone on the passenger seat and on speaker-phone or a wired head-set/mic. The idea of placing jamming devices (which as far as I know is a FCC violation) is impractical. The solution is a legal, make it a crime to use the phone while driving, allow insurance companies not to pay claims involving cell phone use as contributing to an accident and let the person using the cell phone get sued for everything they own.

Bottom line is that the solution is impractical and EXTREMELY easy to circumvent.

Real change on this issue is going to come from the end user - the delivery man, the car pooling mom, or the teen driver deciding to change their habits. From truckers to moms to teens that I spoke with on the issue of text and drive - there was one common thread. If presented with a Big Brother type lock down alternative, they will immediately seek "to get around it". This does not constitute change on our highways. Selling software that is supposed to lock down the activity forgets that it is the end user (the driver) who will ultimately decide. Let's change behavior and we will see those violent crash rates plummet...now.

I decided to do something about it after my three year old daughter was nearly run down right in front of me by a texting driver. Instead of a shackle that locks down phones and alienates the user (especially teens) I built a tool called OTTER that is a simple, affordable app for smartphones. I think if we can empower the individual then change will come to our highways now and not just our laws.

Erik Wood, owner
OTTER LLC
OTTER app

@Alias007: Outside of disagreeing with the points you've made it doesn't seem like anyone is attacking you. Relax, it's a debate.

@Magengar: Have you ever tried to kick out a car window? especially if you are in some sort of compromised position related to the car accident you were just in? Not that easy. Especially if you aren't a particularly strong person.

But at the end of the day I would have to agree with PinkNBlack21, if you know anything about how our government runs, the chances of this passing any time soon is highly unlikely. It is a controversial issue, so it most likely won't be slipped in with some other bill. The debate will make it take that much longer. So how about instead, we just take some personal responsibility and not talk on our phones or text while driving and see how that goes. Maybe spread the word on your own, do a little leg work instead of expecting the gov't to do it all for you.

Some interesting debate here. I live in British Columbia, Canada, our provincial (state) government has just brought in a law banning cell phone use while driving. I think the tickets are around 150 bucks or so. In the first month or so they ticketed a ton of people. It will be interesting to see what the long term effects of this will be.
Also I just took a look at that OTTER app, it sounds like a much less intrusive solution. Maybe it could come standard on all phones.

There's no need to get upset over this. Simply put, this would never fly. Ray LaHood clearly isn't a good fit for his position if he can't see that the legality of this would never hold up and would make such a retarded assumption. Even if there was a way around the legality, the technology would be hacked in no time. The solution, of course, is to continue developing technologies that assist drivers which are coming along quite well.

@ohboyohboy,

Poor choice of words on my part. I really am relaxed.

But for the record, 'no' - replies to me haven't been exactly civil. Admittedly, they haven't been totally harsh either.

But comments like "don't be a fool", "WTF" or a plethora of ridiculous analogies of my viewpoint - that are not at all analogous in any logical way - and make me appear to be anti-condom, anti-swimming, anti-fastfood, anti-yada yada yada should not be welcome in a debate.

'Animosity' was the wrong word to use. I admit that and you're right to call me out there. But when I said I felt like I was the only one being civil, I had a good point.

"Hello, 9-1-1? Yes, there's a very scary man outside of my car threatening to kill me if I take his parking spot! Hello? Hello?"

"I've been in an accident and my legs are pinned under the steering wheel. Hello? Hello?"

"Yes...hi sweetie. Do you think you can come collect your rabid pack of dogs so that I can come inside? Okay, thanks."

Oh. Wait. Your phone doesn't work IN YOUR OWN VEHICLE?!

this is a prickly subject.
people cry at "the man" for taking their "freedom" from them.
(sorry about length, I spaced it out for each subject)

you know, has anyone ever considered that maybe the programmers could allow the number 911 to call out? I don't know much about programming, but if your a guy working for the government, that task doesn't seem to hard t accomplish.

I don't live in "The greatest country on earth" but I would have to agree with it to a point, which is what most people who really think about it do.

No texting, makes sense to me. Can't do it in the back? have a nap, read, play a game.

As for the "what if I'm trapped in my car?" If you are trapped in your car, and can't get out, pretty sure the device has been destroyed. If you are seriously injured and somehow concious, your chances are slim anyways. The argument is kind of funny. Vali, but funny none the less. This is to make the road safer, but the don't want jammer's in case of an accident because of unsafe conditions...

as for those that believe that 5,500 isn't that bad, you are right, it's not. Not in the grand scheme of things, no. But if you could turn back the clock to some cell phone car mis-hap which resulted in death, you would really sacrifice that person's life because you need to know your girlfriend is at the mall?

But don't think just because some one you know died as a result of a cell mis-hap that your opinion is more valid than some one else's, it's not, it's just sadder.

final thought? They would never completely anihilate cell phone communications in cars, but if cutting down on use would save lives, would be up for it.
Those who believe their freedoms are wort more than peoples lives, and think that "The man" should stop "controlling" people, there are plenty of ohter countries where there is no government, and your free to go there.

I can't believe there are actual people in the comments who think this is a good idea! This type of law will only make people's driving habits more dangerous!

Now that using hands free is the only legal way to use a phone in the car, people who still do text in their vehicle do it in a much more dangerous way - they are concerned not only about texting and driving, but also hiding from the police.
So instead of holding your phone straight in front of you where you have a view of the road and your phone, now your phone is down in your lap and you're looking straight down when texting. Much more dangerous behavior!

There's a million and one unintended consequences that this law would produce which overall will make driving more dangerous - just like our current cell phone laws, traffic cameras and traffic lights in general.

You want to make driving safer? Treat people like humans! Get rid of traffic lights like they've done in Denmark and Britain. You want people to not be stupid when they drive? Make them think for themeselves!

The moment they legislate common sense to be mandatory, especially in Washington politics, I will consider their thought of cell phone jammers as a good idea. More people are killed by diarrhea than by road accidents. DUI laws haven’t stopped DUI’s and even worse, more people are killed because of job related accidents then anything that happens on the highways. So, by Washington’s reasoning, we should ban bad cooking, not be allowed to go to work and ban alcohol (oh wait, they tried that, it didn’t work out so well). You have to understand, stupid is stupid and no law or technology can stop the spread of this disease. The dumb people of our society will always find a way to kill either themselves or others no matter how hard we try to prevent it.

My favourite stupid law of the day involves the TSA. They will pat down, xray, bomb sniff and strip search a commercial airline pilot. I don’t understand the logic here? The moment the pilots take off they have the lives of hundreds of passengers in their hands to do with what they will anyway! And the search served what purpose besides being a waste of time and resources? The point is that a new cell phone law or electronic jammer will not prevent bad decisions.

The problem is not cell phones, laws or technology, its responsibility, or the lack there of. We are fortunate to have the freedom to choose our destiny, and at times (for better or worse) the destiny of others as well. To me a better educated society is the solution and not the removal of rights or privileges. No one can ever foresee when stupidity will strike, but a highly educated person has a better understanding on how stupid they can be and how responsible they need to be. Better education equals better decisions. The only exception to this rule of course is the Washington elite. Who knew that so many politicians with such a high degree of knowledge can be so…well…stupid?

What happens when I get kidnapped or something? Or am somehow in need of help somewhere?

They should make it so you can only call 9-11, and not any other number.

I like how this technology is way more important than breathalysers pre-installed in cars. How about fixing some REAL problems, government?

Yeah! THIS is what George Washington fought for! You morons that like this probably like the TSA putting their hands on your kid's genitals. Wake up! PLEASE!

Lack of worn seatbelts cause significantly more deaths per year than distracted driving, but all the government does is make it illegal to drive without a seatbelt. All they need to do in this case is make it illegal to use a cell phone while in a moving vehicle, with hefty fines placed on violators. Repeat offenders will be required to relinquish their cell phones. Simple, and it even generates revenue from fines and confiscated phones.

So this will disable the signal to my phone? no more cell-phone based GPS?

And how about all the other distractions? I've been rear ended by a lady who was fussing with her baby in the back seat. My friend's brother died when trying to change a tape (ie long before cell phones) when he drifted into another lane. I've seen people reading books while driving. Putting on makeup. Ultra loud music. Tired drivers. Getting a Road Job. Or just talking to people in the car with you.

Where is it going to end? -maybe when cars drive themselves. We need to stop stupid laws like this from going into effect before we have no freedoms left.

Wow! I had no idea what a hot bed topic this was going to turn into when I posted a comment days ago. One thing I would like to say is that I personally feel it is not the governments place to force you not to have a working phone in the car. Having said that I also need to clarify that I think hands free or bluetooth should be used. I don't think you should talk while driving just for that sake of yacking. I definitely think the no texting while driving laws are appropriate and I know some states are going to the no talking unless you are hands free. I also find that appropriate. What I'm saying is that the government shouldn't be trying to force us, they should be providing better education about the dangers. This issue should be about people using common sense. A car is a tool, a large heavy tool that should be handle with respect and responsibility. For anyone who has lost someone due to such driving I truly am sorry. No one should be lost in such a senseless manner.

The Dome Diva
All the world is a stage and I get to play with it.

@alias,

"Fast food restaurants do not cause obesity. People choose to have an unhealthy lifestyle and it effects people only internally."

Fat people who have clogged arteries have heart attacks and strokes which results in increased medical expenses, raising insurance raters for OTHER PEOPLE.

So, yes, their actions effect others.

The 900-2500 deaths a year you mention, for a country of 300+ MILLION, is too small to matter. Were there even ANY deaths caused by people talking on hands-free devices?

Also... last time I checked, people CHOSE to drive their cars (just like they chose to smoke and eat fast food).

As someone else has already said, every time you CHOOSE to get into your car, you accept a certain amount of RISK.

Don't want to die in a car accident? Okay... CHOOSE not to drive. ;)

according to the FCC, jamming cell phones is illegal. Some high end resturants tried doing it once. Also You can be sure cell phone companys would never let this pass, and with their billions of dollars they are really who are in control.

good news,there's Fashionable.
☆ ☆
╭⌒╭⌒ ★ ╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒
☆ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒
our websit: ★∴ ☆
☆ ( http://www.shoppinglove.org )
accept paypal╭⌒╮⌒╮★∵╭⌒ ★∴ ☆
╱◥██◣ ☆
｜田｜田田│ ☆Free Shipping ★
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬

( http://www.shoppinglove.org)
fghgfrtyrty

@BV,

Good point about unhealthy people affecting other people in the form of increased health insurance rates and the like.

As for the people that die not being a high enough number to matter, I must disagree and say that that's only the people per year that die. Considering that there are 448,000 injuries per year for avoidable distraction with at least 89,600 being because of a cell phone, I'd have to use your point against you. 89,600+ injuries per year affect other people the same way those unhealthy heart attack and stroke people do, raising insurance rates for other people.

@alias,

Yes, but it's a risk-vs-reward analysis.

I like eating bacon enough that I think bacon should be legal, even if it means I have to pay a higher health insurance premium because there are those who eat so much bacon that they have a heart attack.

I like being able to listen to a Podcast via my cellphone and bluetooth car kit, even if it means I have to pay a little extra in car insurance to cover those morons who break state laws and text while driving.

If you are going to take subjective rewards like "enjoyment of streaming a Podcast while driving" out of the equation and argue solely on the costs of insurance rates... then let's see the data.

Cost of developing, installing, and catching jammer-crackers vs. cost of extra health/car insurance.

Fact is... neither you, nor LaHood, has any actual data for a true cost analysis to say which is cheaper.

LaHood just thinks "it would be better" if nobody used their cellphone while driving because of his own subjective risk-vs-reward thought-process.

The problem is that he goes around acting like he's the King of Cellphones and nobody else is entitled to a different opinion.

I wasn't claiming to have data for a cost analysis. But overall, I agree with everything you just said.

Having over fifty years driving without an accident I feel I can drive as well as most and better than some. Common sense dictates any distraction is bad but it is not OUR government's place to protect us from ourselves. I do not feel any smarter than below average and I can talk on my cellular phone briefly without incidence. I feel it should be illegal to drive and talk though and especially texting seems to be the most dangerous thing I have seen. The government should do the things we need done and leave us alone..........

My company Vision Studios has developed and is getting ready to launch a smart phone app that prevents texting and driving. Our goal is to get it into the hands of parents as well as managers who can ensure it is enabled on the phones of their teenagers and employees, respectively. We are currently seeking out sponsors, endorsers and interested parties so that we can offer the app at no cost. If interested, please contact cory@visionstudiosdesign.com or call 540 209 0951.

In my opinion, it should be survival of the fittest. let us do what we want to do and if your too dumb to not be safe then you deserve to die. Instead of spending money on fixing this problem how bout you spend it on something useful??? or is that too hard for our government to do?

Smart, freedom and liberty loving people, lend me your ears.

This is brilliant! Let the government install this jammer system in the lemmings' cars. Then, as soon as you buy a new car, disable the device, or pay someone a nominal fee to disable the device. That will keep those of us with brains safer, and those without brains will not be able to do something (at least one thing) stupidly, i.e. talking while driving.

If you are smart AND entrepreneurial, then there's money to be made here! You could invent a de-jamming service, then patent it and sell it to every mechanic in the US! Also, you could design a crappy product that you stick somewhere on the car that says it will block the jammer (but really doesn't) and sell them for $20 a pop, just like the cell phone antenna booster stickers, or the Jupiter Jack.

Seriously though, placing a prohibition on something because some people behave badly with it doesn’t necessarily result in the bad behavior being reduced. Best case scenario, it only results in the formation of a black market. Worst case scenario, it actually increases the problem. See the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution for more information.

If you want to reduce a bad behavior, punish the bad behavior in equal proportion to the crime. For example, many countries have significantly lower DUI incidents than the US. This is not because they have put a ban on alcohol, but because if you are caught drinking and driving your driver’s license will be automatically suspended for 6 months, even if no other crime was committed. If you cause an accident while, you will be spending a long time in jail, and likely permanently lose your license. If you kill someone while DUI, you will be charged with murder. That’s how you punish bad behavior. Now, let’s see someone in the government come up with some laws or regulations for distracted driving that appropriately match the crime.

I don't know how many people will read this, but instead of putting jamers into cars, why not make vehicles much more automated? Virgin already has a fleet of self driving cars with probably over 150,000 miles behind their back. why not make it a mandate that all vehicles drive themselves, thanks to cheep-to-install wifi, or other methods of telling vehicles where they are on the road, how fast it can go, and what lies ahead? that would allow anyone in the vehicle to easily do whatever they wanted without having to worry about making the driver crash, just about how good is the programming that's driving us. As the technology becomes more and more accurate, i foresee this being the future of transportation: I need a ride somewhere, hmmm... what to do... thanks to the realization that we can now create enough renewable energy, mankind stepped away from fissile fuels and now is in a much better society, where we all work together, in a very similar way to how we do now, but now everything Eco-friendly, and free thanks to the pure abundance of energy that is required to do something and now we do things because we want to, or its automated if we don't. So I pull out my trusty cellphone, and enter the 9 digit code (or maybe just hit a single button) and say how many passengers are wanting to travel (3), and a vehicle is sent from an automated repair/storage bay to the coordinates that my GPS enabled phone gives to the operating system, and the appropriate electric vehicle arrives within 15 - 45 minutes, depending on variables, and i will be told approximately when it will arrive and when to expect it, or i could get a page/text saying that its arrived.
Maybe this is overly simplified, but we are heading that way at a fast trot, so why not have funding go to some sort of system like this?
I know I'm an idealist, but if not for fossil fuel companies, we could have entered the electric age of virtual utopia long ago. Don't get me wrong, there is no such thing as utopia, only an ever self bettering society.

I do not think that using jammers in cars is a good idea at all.They should go for new cell phone technology like reverse phone lookup to avoid problems.The defaulters should be punished.But using Jammers may cause problem sometimes when you need to immediately text someone.

This is ridicules; it’s not the answer to problem. Now passing a law that connects cell phones to the new automobiles better, making it more user-friendly then using the cell phone itself would be acceptable to me. But not something that is mandatory on the user to use. They already have voice text; why not add onto that technology. Picture this, you get into your vehicle and the phone connects (I know we have it already) having all your text come through the speakers already installed. Basically, make it mandatory on all vehicles.

i m an electronics & communication engineering student in India..
The mobile phone is the ubiquitous equipment which has the main distinguishable feature --- it can be used wherever, whenever or however we are.
but by disabling the phone, we cannot say the above mentioned feature is accomplished.....
what if emergency call arrives or what if we have to call someone for emergency situations like accidents or robbery in remote places, where no one around us..
for this reason i m currently working on a project to rectify this problem..
the aim of my project is "we can attend the incoming call if we turn off the engine... that is if the important call arrives while driving, we just have to park the car and turn off the engine... and then we can attend call"
"if we attend the call without turning off the engine, then jammer gets ON"
this concept works for txt msges too..
i used simple logic to accomplish this project...
the project is almost completed... and producing good results so far... in fact this is my final year project..

Actually, a lot of states have now put a ban on talking on a phone or texting messages while driving. In spite of this, there are still a lot of lawless persons persist of doing so. For those ones, I think a recently popular gadget would come into great help---- that is the cell phone jammer http://www.jammerall.com/ for car.