manitoubass2

How bout just make a law against distracted driving and enforce it...oh wait....

And the fines can go to ontarios solutions to global warming???

Win wynne

Some merit to this, but, that will only increase the value of the millions of smart phones out there as it will be impossible to retrofit every phone in everyones hand...there will very quickly become a black market for older and cracked phones. Of course Apple a fiercely protective US company and Samsung of Korea will not cater to the Canadian market or agree to limit the freedom of their customer.

 

There is not a simple answer to the problem. Again, it's not a perfect solution but heavy fines and demerits would cause SOME of the idiots to think twice or start walking.....

Look what dan posted. Perhaps his idea is a more valid approach

Flood gates....oh my! Police state...lock up your women and children!

 

It's a slippery slope spiraling downwards to hole that you can never get out of...in the end there's the end. 400,000 years ago some caveman came up with a law not to kill...and now we have Wynee!!! Slippery slope my friends. slippery slope!!! Freedom now MB2 FREEDOM NOW!!

????

It doesnt have to be a "government mole".

It could be a corporation doing the right thing.

For once...

Market it correctly and force all others to follow suit.

Its plausable...

But without legislation youde get the companies marketing outside the box.

Maybe I should just be a good sheep and give up?

Progress is for the ill minded???

That's why I have location services turned off, and decline to download apps like that.

 

You're taking about something where I don't have freedom of choice.

 

Should we use the government to mandate: coffee cups that can't be opened while driving, make up that can't be applied, newspapers that can't be read, etc? I see people doing these things every day commuting. I also see collisions almost every day, and not all of them were texting. There are enough horrible drivers we should be getting off the road altogether before I'm buying a phone that's a government mole ?

Here is an example(dutch)

I looked up one game on google play list.

Is this not draconian? Not just to you dutch but to everyone.

A simple download of a random game gives away a literal crap ton of your information

 

I seem to remember back in my youth the government legislated the use of seat belts.

At the time not all vehicles had them.

New vehicles were required to have seat belts in them in order to be sold in Canada.

That is common friggen sense and a miracle the government got it right.

For every positive they do its like 1000 negatives lol(thats me chatting not any real data)

You want the government to force a private manufacturer to design a specific and different phone/operating system, contrary to their profitably, because a relatively small market said to? Keep in mind this is a provincial area of responsibility. You're saying you'd let Kathleen put software on your phone to track your location and movement? I'd never stand for that. It's Draconian, it won't ever happen. Apple could appeal to the WTO and would win. Apple could just stop selling phones in Ontario until the uproar topples the government.

 

Would you also support a requirement that all computers in Ontario have to have a back door for government to check if you're pirating? What about software that ensures I don't use key words like bomb, and reports me to CSIS if I do?

 

Asking for big gov to intrude further on our lives is never a solution to anything imo.

You are totally in my mind set, we think the same way.

Read all the posts dutch. You will likely see where I am coming from(might not agree with it)

I mentioned police state, along with that comes draconian laws, and thats why Ive mentioned alot of different factors.

This is one area where manufactures could make a SUBSTANTIAL difference without violating personal and privacy laws(to a degree, for the greater good)

Lets face it, it is not our right to take a human life. So if we can eliminate that in one particular area, why not?

But this is an isolated case. I believe this to be very beneficial.

But it shouldnt or cannot translate into legislation with other areas that have differencials involved ie huntin, fishing, etc

Imo, this is one area government could legislate a positive bill that harms nobody, but saves alot of bodies.

At no cost be it. Its simple. Any tech manufacturer could do this at little to no cost.

If you need to call 911 you likely need to stop too

Early delivery pregnancy?

Kidnapped and in a trunk?

Variables

Also that jason stathom guy could be chasing you???

 

Exactly!!!

Legislate the phone manufacturers to incorporate into their OS' a system that looks at the phones GPS and when the GPS hits 5 MPH the phone is disabled for everything except 911 calls.

Very simple to do at the operating system level.

Yep. Read my idea on page 1.

Leave emergency 911 available and flight mode available

Phone cant be used for calls or texting unless synced to the vehicle via bluetooth.

Simple and affordable

If marketed well, a large corporation could easily profit and set the standard if legislation was involved.

=no loss to profits

Depopulation is actually a fairly popular idea.

Not saying I agree with it however.

Genocide still happens fairly regularily these days in certain places.

Its just not as important as a gorilla being shot these days.

Just because someone disagrees Rick doesn't mean you are wrong. The issue with a piece of software is the phone companies (Apple/Samsung) would never let it happen. Case in point is Apple's outright refusal to help crack criminals cell phones. Heavy fines and DEMERIT points are not perfect but will cause enough pain so that these IDIOTS will eventually get it or lose their driving privileges. Biggest problem with this approach is enforcement.

Oh for sure.

Just sucks that we know whats possible, and it wont happen. And that will cost lives.

Yet many of us call for plausible affordable action which is available do negate all of this.

Aa far as apple/samsung are concerned I agree. But proper influence/advertising could easily sway things in their favour.

Is this one case that lobbying might actually be for the greater good?

Unfortunately 99.9% chance no. And thats a shame

Meh, it is what it is I guess.

Enjoy the funerals

Don't have a cell phone and have no intension of ever getting one.

Thats not a flaw lol. I dont blame you for your decision however. Must be nice

Dutch, look big picture.

I always enjoy your posts because of that and the simple, or sometimes complicated logic you post.

What happens when you get a $5000 fine for texting and driving?

Its a ripple effect. People lose jobs, licenses, jail time, possibly family loss etc.

Where does this money go from the fines? What happens to the impounded cars? Where does the increase in police come from? Are they sped through training or properly trained? How does a police officer know, beyond a reasonable doubt, you were texting or using a mobile device?

The questions never end.

And heavy fines/jail time solve nothing.

Who pays for these individuals to be incarcerated? US.

Fines/jailtime just create way more legal issues, deaths, injury, loss of work, court time, more police, more taxes, etc

Again. Software/hardware eliminates the problem altogether. Why not explore that option?

Adding software to my phone is not viable at all if I chose not to download and install the app.

 

Temporary seizure of the car is the solution with the least legal hurdles and the most impact. If I text and drive in a Ferrari no fine will hurt as much as towing it away.

Im not talking an "app"

Im talking built into the phone system.

Ive already mentioned the solution is not applicapable to alcohol/drugs.

But for phones, it can be easily done.

Although I do respect your opinion, and its certainly your right to voice it, I strongly disagree.

If it can be settled by software easily and affordably, IMO that is the answer.

Anyone that disagrees, please feel free to point out a flaw in my idea(Im not perfect im sure there is more than one)

Remove the human error(in this case) and let it be settled.

Easy solution to a idiodic problem.

Thats my point.

Do this then eventually it gets applied to other things.

And in this case, on page 1, I presented an easy and feasable solution.

Stop the issue in its tracks(when possible/plausable)

Fines and jail dont do that.

Look at drinking and driving. I dont have stats here but I bet it temporarily helped with stiffer laws/punishment. But in the end thousands are still injured and or die.

Albeit I see no plausable solution in that case

Don't believe it leads to a police state Rick simply because it's just a higher penalty for what is already a crime.

 

My $0.02 dood.

Not directly, but it opens the flood gates in other legalities in the big picture.

We all know this. Take one thing, move on to the next.

It never goes backwards with government, ever.

Im dissapointed many here think a steeper fine/confiscation is the answer.

Yet you wynne about taxes.

This just leads to a police state.

And then it expands to other areas.

Adding software to all phones is much more viable

Fines only reduce the problem to a degree.

Its not a solution, more like a band aid

That isnt your opinion art thats a fact.

25,000 dog whistles, 25,000 regular whistles

According to latest studies, and what I always believed, even hands free is distracting...its not the holding the phone, its the concentrating on the conversation instead of driving

Its literally no different than talking to a passenger

I say "txt dad, lets go fishing"

My eyes have never once left the road nor my hands the wheel.

Same for phone calls

Its trying to grab objects, do alternative tasks etc while driving that bring added danger to the equation.

Also, some people just suck at driving. My friend for instance. Heading to work at dusk, gets distracted by grabbing his coffee. Looks up to see a deer. Instinct apperently tells him to veer into oncoming traffic and hit an 8ft ditch.

Not only is his truck totalled, he gets charged. Insurance goes up. Breaks a few ribs and misses time at work.

Thankfully nobody is dead nor involved in the incident.

All that, and all he had to do was actually hit the deer. Minimal damage all things considered.

I disagree with fines etc solely because they are not eliminating the error.

You will still have many unecessary deaths/accidents.

Remove the problem at the source.