RE: Nissan Signal Shield aims to reduce smartphone use

[RegMolehusband]

The wife and children would not be happy!

[Torquey]

I cant believe Nissan have even invested in this. Total waste of time.


If a technological solution is needed then install retina monitoring. Look below 0 degrees and your seat gets electrified.
A policing solution would be more realistic though.

[talksthetorque]

Torquey said:

I cant believe Nissan have even invested in this. Total waste of time.


If a technological solution is needed then install retina monitoring. Look below 0 degrees and your seat gets electrified.
<snip sensible idea>

Are you chipping in for everyone's car to be fitted with HUD?

No? Ok no problem - there is a phone app for a HUD speedo

[Torquey]

talksthetorque said:

Are you chipping in for everyone's car to be fitted with HUD?

No? Ok no problem - there is a phone app for a HUD speedo

They could just use the same budget they allocate for the electric chairs and laser beams?

[Funk]

Idiots who can't put a phone out of sight on silent won't put it in a 'faraday cage armrest'. So not only is it pointless, it's also a great way to drain your battery much faster - the phone will be continuously hunting for a signal which will drain it far faster than being sat connected to the network.

Well done Nissan - you win this month's Most Pointless Feature Award.

[Evilex]

Craiglamuffin said:

And in the event of an EMP pulse, your phone will emerge unscathed. This is true because it's in movies.

What we need is not a Faraday Cage built into an armrest, but a device that emits an electromagnetic pulse to disable all the phones being illegally used by other road users around you. Or some sort of jamming device.

[sorrel]

Random, unmarked policing and serious sentences for phone use should do it.

If these morons were fined £1000 or more, have the phone crushed and a ban from driving for a year....how many would still risk it I wonder..

[vikingaero]

Nissan should fit the device as standard for company directors and women

[culpz]

To be fairly brutal, why would any car manufacturer particularly care about people using their phone while driving? That's nothing to do with them really, is it? Will the next thing be some kind of standard speed-limiter that utilises the sat-nav to identify the speed limit of each road that the car drives on and limits the car to that exact speed and no more?

I understand that they're only trying to help but we still live in a world where the squidgy bit inside still has the responsibility to operate a motor car in a respectful, sensible and safe manor with the acquirement of a valid driving license. We're not yet into autonomous cars without the need for any driver input, which would question the need for this anyway.

Edited by culpz on Wednesday 10th May 09:42

[Ex Boy Racer]

havoc said:

Durzel said:

It's essentially a pointless device from what I can tell.

If you're the sort of person who is inclined to check WhatsApp, text or whatever whilst driving, then you aren't going to put your phone in this compartment. If you already don't check your phone whilst driving then this thing is pretty much irrelevant to you, because you wouldn't have touched your phone anyway.

Agreed.

Ex Boy Racer said:

It's about time car manufacturers fitted phone signal killers as standard.

And what about those occasions where you do need to make a short, safe (hands-free) phone call? Not just emergencies, but something as simple as letting your partner know about traffic, or an issue at home or the child's school? Something where a 60-sec call can save a lot of bother.

...and then there's stuff like navigation and traffic apps which use mobile data for constructive purposes. I use Inrix (and iPhone owning friends use Waze) - the phone is in a cradle just inside the A-pillar (easy line-of-sight, minimal obstruction to view), it's easier to view than a screen on the centre-console and it works SO much better than the manufacturer-supplied "traffic alerts". And it's completely legal in operation as I just set it up and don't need to touch it.



I really despair of the "ban everything" attitude we have in this country. The problem isn't that we need more legislation, just that we need current legislation enforcing actively*. "Treat people like children and they'll behave like children" is a little twee but it's still accurate...


* The big issue with phones is people know they won't get caught as there's hardly any police on the roads anymore and those that are generally have more important things to do unless you're driving like an idiot. Start actively policing it and the problem will soon go away...just like drink-driving incidences started plummeting 20+ years ago!

I am far from a ban everything person. But phones seem to remove people's sense of responsibility.
Want to make a call? Then stop for a minute and do so.
The fact is that people are using phones, texting, emailing and they think it's ok. And they will not stop until they are made to.
Agree with your thoughts about increasing the risk of being caught. Same goes for middle lane hoggers, under-takers, tailgaters etc etc

[CDP]

We have gesture recognition in cars these days. So why can't the computer recognise the phone is being picked up while driving? A couple of tiny electrodes in the drivers seat could then be employed to make him drop the phone....

[spikyone]

Ex Boy Racer said:

havoc said:

Durzel said:

It's essentially a pointless device from what I can tell.

If you're the sort of person who is inclined to check WhatsApp, text or whatever whilst driving, then you aren't going to put your phone in this compartment. If you already don't check your phone whilst driving then this thing is pretty much irrelevant to you, because you wouldn't have touched your phone anyway.

Agreed.

Ex Boy Racer said:

It's about time car manufacturers fitted phone signal killers as standard.

And what about those occasions where you do need to make a short, safe (hands-free) phone call? Not just emergencies, but something as simple as letting your partner know about traffic, or an issue at home or the child's school? Something where a 60-sec call can save a lot of bother.

...and then there's stuff like navigation and traffic apps which use mobile data for constructive purposes. I use Inrix (and iPhone owning friends use Waze) - the phone is in a cradle just inside the A-pillar (easy line-of-sight, minimal obstruction to view), it's easier to view than a screen on the centre-console and it works SO much better than the manufacturer-supplied "traffic alerts". And it's completely legal in operation as I just set it up and don't need to touch it.



I really despair of the "ban everything" attitude we have in this country. The problem isn't that we need more legislation, just that we need current legislation enforcing actively*. "Treat people like children and they'll behave like children" is a little twee but it's still accurate...


* The big issue with phones is people know they won't get caught as there's hardly any police on the roads anymore and those that are generally have more important things to do unless you're driving like an idiot. Start actively policing it and the problem will soon go away...just like drink-driving incidences started plummeting 20+ years ago!

I am far from a ban everything person. But phones seem to remove people's sense of responsibility.
Want to make a call? Then stop for a minute and do so.
The fact is that people are using phones, texting, emailing and they think it's ok. And they will not stop until they are made to.
Agree with your thoughts about increasing the risk of being caught. Same goes for middle lane hoggers, under-takers, tailgaters etc etc

Absolutely this. I can think of no occasion where a call is so urgent that you couldn't wait until there was a safe place to stop. I'm pretty sure the world functioned perfectly well before mobile phones became commonplace in the late 90s.
I'll agree with everyone who's already posted that if you're stupid enough to think using your phone whilst driving is acceptable, you're not exactly going to put it in Nissan's magic box.

Just to your last point though; for the most part under-taking only happens because the person being under-taken is lane hogging. I'm not going to sit behind someone who's pootling along at 60 in the outside lane of a 2-lane NSL road, with a half mile gap in front to any other traffic...

[SturdyHSV]

They could have at least made the compartment also wirelessly charge the phone... Give people some sort of reason/incentive to actually use it...

[MitchT]

SturdyHSV said:

They could have at least made the compartment also wirelessly charge the phone... Give people some sort of reason/incentive to actually use it...

That'll probably be a £300 option.

[drdino]

Ex Boy Racer said:

It's about time car manufacturers fitted phone signal killers as standard.

Can't count the number of times I have looked in my rear view mirror and seen a car following too close with the driver clearly looking at the phone?

People cannot, unfortunately be trusted. Seems simple to me - fit a device that stops signals when the ignition is on. problem solved

How are you going to limit the jammer to the driver only?

[xjay1337]

SturdyHSV said:

They could have at least made the compartment also wirelessly charge the phone... Give people some sort of reason/incentive to actually use it...

Most phones drain the battery as well when there is little to no signal as they are constantly trying to find a network.

[Ex Boy Racer]

drdino said:

Ex Boy Racer said:

It's about time car manufacturers fitted phone signal killers as standard.

Can't count the number of times I have looked in my rear view mirror and seen a car following too close with the driver clearly looking at the phone?

People cannot, unfortunately be trusted. Seems simple to me - fit a device that stops signals when the ignition is on. problem solved

How are you going to limit the jammer to the driver only?

Don't see why it needs to be limited. My point is, like it or not, numpties are driving every day while e-mailing and texting (actually being on the phone doesn't bother me so much). Their eyes and their attention are certainly not on the road. And ad campaigns, social pressure and common sense are not stopping them.

Fact is, people are being killed by this, so if that means the poor passengers also have to wait until they use their phone too then that will have to be fine.

I admit I'm getting on a bit. But surely it isn't essential to be in touch every second of every day is it?

Just a few weeks ago there was a truck right behind me (like, a car's length)on a 50 mph dual carriageway and I could see quite clearly that the driver was texting or e-mailing on his bright green phone. He's get closer and closer, look up to see me and then drop back a little.

It was so bad I pulled over and let him past - trust me, this is something that I NEVER do normally! To my horror his load was around 50 large calor gas canisters. Imagine what the result of a collision would have been...

[Ex Boy Racer]

Just to your last point though; for the most part under-taking only happens because the person being under-taken is lane hogging. I'm not going to sit behind someone who's pootling along at 60 in the outside lane of a 2-lane NSL road, with a half mile gap in front to any other traffic...
[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. To my mind it's just another example of 'the rules don't apply to me so I'll do what I want'.

Though I'll also accept that sometimes it has to be done when drivers simply won't pull over. In exceptional circumstances and done with care it's not a danger.

The ones that really get me are the drivers who zig zag through busy motorways using all three lanes, at speed, to dodge through busy traffic.

[Ahonen]

loose cannon said:

ukaskew said:

I find it amusing that so much effort is being made to reduce phone use in cars, yet many new models no longer have physical controls (that after a few hours you can use without so much as a glance) for many functions, as they've been replaced with touch screens.

After a previous discussion it's apparent only people younger than me, 41 no how to use touch screens without looking at them, personally I think touch screen should be banned from cars

Yes, absolutely. I work on the continent quite a bit and drive a broad variety of rental cars. The number of cars with touch screens is alarming and they are starting to be used for controls that have no need for them at all - heaters/climate, heated seats, basic radio controls like volume. Because there's no texture to the screen you have to look at it (and in many cases navigate through a couple of other screens) just to make a simple adjustment that in my BMW can be done by feel alone. I find them dangerous to use and I'm only in my mid 40s. I'm sure that with time you get used to the navigation, of course, but it's far from ideal. Cheap to produce though, I guess...

[SPMX5]

pretty much all car companies want to protect their own in-car tech and connectivity to avoid losing out to tech companies, this could be an interesting way of pushing drivers to use the in-car systems more.