Studies Conclude Hands-Free-calling and Apple Siri Distract Drivers 208
New submitter operator_error writes with a story at the L.A. Times that echoes some previous research on the relative risks of hand-held vs. hands-free phones by drivers, and comes to an even grimmer conclusion: In many cars, making a hands-free phone call can be more distracting than picking up your phone, according to a new study from AAA and the University of Utah. In-dash phone systems are overly complicated and prone to errors, the study found, and the same is true for voice-activated functions for music and navigation. A companion study also found that trying to use Siri — the voice control system on Apple phones — while driving was dangerously distracting. Two participants in the study had virtual crashes in an automotive simulator while attempting to use Siri, the study's authors reported. In response, Toyota said the study did not show a link between cognitive distraction and car crashes. "The results actually tell us very little about the relative benefits of in-vehicle versus hand-held systems; or about the relationship between cognitive load and crash risks," said Mike Michels, a Toyota spokesman.
Meanwhile, many states treat hand-held devices very differently from hands-free ones; in New York, for instance, both texting and talking on a hand-held mobile phone are put in the same category, while talking on a hands-free device is covered only by more general distracted driving laws. If the Utah study is correct, maybe that's backwards. (And some evidence suggests that phone use in cars is not quite the straightforward danger that it's sometimes presented as, despite the correlation of phone use with accidents.)
So.. (Score:3, Insightful)
With this revelation will the government allow phone use now?
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I didn't read the article but I did hear about it on the radio driving into work (yes, radio). Driving is chocked full of little distractions, but what the interviewer said was that the digital control on the dash is even more distractive than a phone. I can relate to that - I drove a 2014 rental with one of those. I was a major distraction, and also a pain in the ass. I like my manual controls thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I once had a rental in Germany and accidentally hit a button. The car kept asking me a question in German and I had no clue what to say or do. Eventually, I hit the right button to stop the inquisition.
Re: (Score:2)
I once had a rental in Germany and accidentally hit a button. The car kept asking me a question in German and I had no clue what to say or do. Eventually, I hit the right button to stop the inquisition.
I didn't expect this inquisition just from driving a car...
Re: (Score:2)
Its a crap shoot. I just drove a rental this weekend with a touch screen interface. I had my music on USB and I found it quite a bit easier than normal to navigate my music. However, adjusting the freakin air temperature was an adventure.
I once had a rental in Germany and accidentally hit a button. The car kept asking me a question in German and I had no clue what to say or do. Eventually, I hit the right button to stop the inquisition.
You couldn't have swapped in Spain for Germany? No one would have fucking known. What a missed opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Like a 16 yr old driver trying to figure out the radio in a new car.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the study doesn't imply that using hands-free is worse. It actually implies that bad user-interfaces are worse. How does the distraction hold up once the call has been connected and the conversation has started?
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So they aren't actually performing the task of driving while they are preoccupied with their cell phone. They may as well be asleep during those periods.
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not necessarily a problem, though. You should be able to look away or think about something else for a short time without getting into an accident; driving should not require your full attention every millisecond of the trip. People just aren't capable of maintaining that level of attention on one thing for extended periods. Some degree of distraction is necessary if you want to remain in the proper frame of mind for driving (c.f. "highway hypnosis"). The trick is to plan ahead, allow for how quickly conditions can change, and allow yourself time to react. Naturally, that depends quite a bit on the driving conditions. Hazards can appear much more quickly when driving 25 MPH through a dense suburban residential area—where a one-second lapse could easily mask a child running out from behind a parked car—than at 70 MPH on an open highway through flat countryside with good visibility for miles around, where a lapse in attention ten times as long is unlikely to pose much of a risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Since bicycle lanes are relatively rare, [drivers] work of the assumption they are currently occupying the rightmost lane. Then they make an right hand turn across the bike lane, cutting me off.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not at all surprised that drivers have trouble with bike lanes. They violate several basic principles of safe driving. For example, you're normally supposed to turn right from the rightmost driving lane, but (familiarity aside) the bike lane isn't large enough for a normal-sized vehicle to fit, so drivers don't think of it as a driving lane. It's more like an extension of the shoulder, or a sidewalk. In some (most?) areas you're supposed to "merge" into the bike lane before turni
Re: (Score:2)
Will they also ban passengers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because I'm pretty sure that talking to one's significant other is equally distracting.
Re:Will they also ban passengers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget bees. You ever get a bee in the car when you're driving? There ought to be a law.
Re: (Score:2)
with that said, it is not the distraction per say, it is the timing of the distraction that is the problem.
On a long, empty, straight stretch of a highway, during a sunny day, that is usually no problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In California when they first passed the hands free laws they actually used a study that said that hands free was just as bad as holding the phone as justification for the law.
The problem in the US is that the politicians have figured out just how truly stupid and lazy the majority of people are and are using that to their advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
With this revelation will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?
No, the government will never support you putting someone behind bars. Imprisonment is only allowed when the government does it.
With the prevalence of cell phones today (for those counting, that would be ALL drivers on the road) and the average persons ignorance (it'll never happen to me), a deadly accident isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Yep. Just like it was before we'd invented cell phones.
I'll spell it out for you: it's always a matter of probability.
Enjoy the very freedom our society still wants to give killers on the road. Just don't bitch about it when it hits home.
So... it's only right to be upset about traffic fatalities if there are strict laws in place?
Oh yeah, I forgot. It'll never happen to you, right?
Again, this has nothing to do with cell-phone use.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as I can play with my cell phone, I won't have a hand free for the whiskey bottle.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Killing someone is already illegal, and Im of the school of thought that says having redundant laws is always a bad thing. Never have 2 laws where one will do; if killing someone through negligence is illegal, killing someone because of your cellphone doesnt need to be differently illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, making it illegal to do the thing which could potentially lead to you killing someone isn't redundant.
Otherwise, drunk driving, seat belts, helmets and speed limits wouldn't be necessary until you killed someone.
Distracted driving laws are intended to stop the problem in the first place, instead of waiting until people actually get killed. They allow you to fine people for doing stupid and dangerous things before someone dies.
And, judging by the number of people I see still texting and driving (badly), the only way I see this changing is through a mechanism like this. Because without fines (and hopefully demerit points), people will just keep doing it ... right up until they do kill someone.
Re: (Score:2)
*Are* rules about drunk-driving, speed limits and seatbelts actually necessary?
The way to look at it is this: some eejit over ----> there writing a "rule" down on a piece of paper is not going to have a measurable effect on whether I crash or not in a given period. Laws are not there to prevent Newtonian physics. Accidents gonna happen. However, they *are* there in order that, when you wipe-out and take a bunch of folks with you, they then have grounds on which to prosecute your piddly ass - the same s
Re: (Score:2)
will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?
Forget the teens...I see soccer moms and jerks every day all day with their heads in their laps cluelessly driving down the freeway. The look of indignation when I honk and "wave" are priceless. It's that "I'm a responsible driver. I know how to text and drive safely. How dare you!" look. This should be a night in jail mandatory sentence for depraved indifference IMO. A couple of those and it might start to change. But with cops [policechiefmagazine.org] being just as big offenders that's not likely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because it's not the 17-year old's fault someone let a minor control a dangerous machine. They're a minor for a reason.
Driverless Car (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty funny that this article is right on top of the driverless city they're building in Michigan.
Please make autonomous cars a reality so we can finally stop having careless drivers on the road killing 40 000 in the USA alone every year.
Re: (Score:2)
So does scratching your nose (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Point is this -- you don't truly NEED to call Joe do you, do you? No. The only call you ever might NEED to make is a 911 call.
And that's the problem, using running late, or I 'really need to call so and so', or not knowing where you're going as an excuse for being distracted, and putting the rest of us at risk.
I drive my young daughter to school every morning (and I live in city with a lot of traffic/gridlock), and it pisses me off to no fucking end the number of people fucking around with their phone for s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you are now talking about tuning the radio, I would argue that it's far more distracting. You are actually taking your attention off of driving, and using it to turn the knob, decide if you like the next station, continue tuning, etc... It's an active task. It's not a passive task. Just because we have trouble defining "active" and "passive" in real-world use cases doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly this. I do a lot of highway driving by myself, generally on weekends. I listen to the radio just fine. But occasionally I've found myself texting periodically with someone about some problem. Quiet back country rural roads. I'm texting with the phone on the dash, so I'm not moving my head, just adjusting the my focusing distance typing about 1 cps... I find that when I'm finished that task, I don't remember any part of the intervening journey... My mind went on auto-pilot and exercised all th
Re: (Score:2)
"My point above was that it is very possible to intelligently and carefully use a cellphone and drive"
And yet study after study after study contradict that assertion, but let me guess -- those don't apply to you, of course not...
Re:So does scratching your nose (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
of course it's not a good excuse. That doesn't and never will mean that it does not motivate people to accept more risk.
Re: (Score:2)
You should pull over to do any of those things. Running late or being in a hurry never has, and never will be a good excuse to risk causing an accident. To say that it's less dangerous than actions that also involve hands is a poor defense.
Police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances all seem to be excused for driving fast, on the wrong side of the road, blowing through stop signs and traffic signals, etc. on the premise that they're in a hurry.
Calling Captain Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
...and so do kids, passengers, arguments, the radio, the A/C controls, and anything else that takes your visual or mental attention away from the road in front of you.
This is surprising, how, exactly? Siri and similar are a hell of a lot better than texting and otherwise using your smart device in the normal, "non voice controlled" way.
Re: (Score:3)
The answer is clear, then. Ban A/C controls, radio, passengers and kids!
Re:Calling Captain Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is clear, then. Ban A/C controls, radio, passengers and kids!
You are totally skirting around the correct solution. In 100% of crashes, the common element among all of them is the driver. Ban the driver and you solve the problem of driver distracted crashes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're not seeing the whole picture here. In 100% of the crashes, physics are involved. I say go to the source and ban physics!
As one of the few people here... (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing so important that you cannot pull over and call/text. Nothing. Period.
In my case, she had a full 10 seconds of red light before impact. 10 seconds at 60mph = almost 3 football fields of not looking out the window.
Hanging upside down from the seatbelt, covered in broken glass, was not how I expected to spend my lunch hour.
Drive the damn car. Talk later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
..
In my case, she had a full 10 seconds of red light before impact.
Sorry for you accident.
But to go off on a tangent/rant, its a regular occurrence (easily 3 or 4 times year) for me to be facing a green light and have someone come through against the red. Yet I never see any of those people on the phone .. they are just really really bad drivers and are accidents waiting to happen.
To me the obvious solution is red light cameras that can deliver some feedback to such idiots by slapping them with a fine before they hit someone. And while I am well aware of the "red-light-
Re: (Score:2)
A full 10 seconds of facing a red light? Far more rare, absent full distraction from something. In this case, it was known and admitted that it was the phone/texting.
Red light cameras are, in theory, a good idea. But it always gets screwed up between the politician and the company supplying it.
Ticket revenue split between the city and the camera company. So the controlling parties adjust the settings to provide 'more revenue'....more tickets. Not
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of seconds of red light? Sure, I've seen that too.
Thats my point. That should be the rare event, not the common event. Ideally 10 seconds should be nonexistent. But with no feedback loop controlling bad drivers, the "couple or seconds" gets accepted as the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
But 10 seconds later at 60MPH? Not unless they were actually asleep or totally distracted.
In this persons case, it was already illegal for her to be on the phone, either talking or texting. In my state, it is/was illegal to use any communication device if you are under 18. So 'a law' or red light camera would have made no difference, because s
Re: (Score:2)
It was a usual, every day thing to do.
You just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended her lucky streak. I posit that that particular red light was not the first one that she had run, and that red light cameras could have caught her actions sooner and punished just her and not you. On the other hand they would have done nothing if it was a first the offense for her. But on the third hand .. if it was well known in the first place that you get severely punished for running red lights and you will be caught, then there w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My only beef with red light cameras is the only driving offence I have is going though a red light so an ambulance barrelling down the road behind me with blues and twos going would not have too slow down ended up with me having a fine and points on my license. Won't be doing that again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that never, ever, happened before cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
That's illegal on freeways where pulling over is only allowed for emergencies.
Waiting till driverless cars (Score:2)
People that are terrified of Ebola, terrorists, vaccines, etc. will quite willingly smoke, drive distracted, and cross subway tracks.
Siri is distracting because it only works 50% (Score:3)
or not (Score:2)
"noting that the research did not document that cognitive distraction leads to crashes. Conversely, physical activities, such as reaching for a phone, texting or reading emails while driving do create distractions that cause collisions."
Why can't anybody do a good study on this? must studies start based on a study that came to it's numbers just by assumption, not actual data.
Other studies don't take into account what is too much distraction., just that there was a distraction.
They don't take into account ho
Beta link (Score:2)
Is anyone else irritated by an explicit link to the beta site in this summary? You can edit 'tech-beta.slashdot.org' to be just 'tech.slashdot.org' and they do still offer the link back to the real site once you get there, but it's still annoying.
Maybe the solution is "just don't click on links while on Slashdot." That's a grand old tradition here anyway, I guess.
Ponch vs Siri (Score:2)
But... Utah. (Score:2)
To be fair, conducting a study about distracted driving in Utah is like hosting a philosophical debate in the mosh pit of a Gwar concert. It can be done, but the noise is going to be overwhelming.
I lived and drove there for ten years, which taught me fear as I have never known. Utah drivers don't need any help being terrible, but they welcome it anyway.
Just Siri? (Score:2)
A defense against rear-end collisions (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had two "love taps" from behind, one by a tailgater in dense traffic, one by a lady putting on makeup while driving.
Then I got rear-ended by some punk teen in his hopped-up Tacoma with a big tacky add-on tach, gauges on the a-pillar, etc. That impact lifted the rear of my Miata and twisted her lengthwise. Instant kill. I was ok, the car died protecting me. It was a fun 10 years that I had that car, and I still miss her.
So now, whenever I stop at a light or stopsign, or when in traffic which is slowing down, I keep an eye on the rear view mirror. If I see an approaching car and I think they're not stopping -- or if I actually *see* them working the phone, I flash my brakelights and honk the horn lots. Saved me already once, for-sure. Guy looks up and the nose went down, he was hard on the brakes. Then he looks up, as if saying "What?!"
Re: (Score:3)
So now, whenever I stop at a light or stopsign, or when in traffic which is slowing down, I keep an eye on the rear view mirror.
That wouldn't have worked in my case. I stopped in traffic, the car behind me stopped, the car behind them stopped (and that car had a trailer) . Then a fourth car rear-ended the car with the trailer, who was pushed into the next car, which was pushed into me. That impact broke my rear axle and put my car off the road. My only saving grace was that I had left enough room ahead of me so that I wasn't pushed into the car ahead of me.
But yeah .. keeping an eye out behind you and leaving an escape route in
Re: (Score:2)
You're the only other person I've heard of that does this. I would like to think it's more widespread than I think -- but I fear it isn't widespread at all.
People look at me weird when I tell them that I do this.
Re: (Score:3)
You're the only other person I've heard of that does this.
I think it comes from having ridden motorcycles and knowing that certain death was only moments away unless I was fully aware of my surroundings and in control of my actions.
For example I also don't trust mirrors and turn my head to look where I am about to change lanes to.
Re: (Score:2)
I was on vacation and the idiot in front of me decides to stop in the middle of a highway and do a u-turn to go back to the previous town. I slammed on the brakes hard as did the person behind me. I could see that the person behind THEM was not going to stop. The instant they hit I edged forward as close to idiot's bumper as I could without hitting him. I escaped the crash by an inch.
You absolutely should watch for people behind you who aren't going to stop and take any evasive maneuvers that you can.
I have to admit there is some validity to this (Score:2)
At first I thought, "No way! My hands-free function on my car is great, and far less distracting." Then I remember the frustrations I had when I first started using it. This is an example of the type of "conversation" I would have:
Car: "Voice command please." ...etc, etc, etc
Me:"Call Marty Klugman"
Car: "Calling Mary Kliegleman. Say yes or no."
Me:"No"
Car: "Voice command please"
Me:"Call Mar-ty Klug-man!"
Car: "Calling Harry Chelphon. Say yes or no"
Me:"NO!"
The next thing I know I'm arguing; YELLING at my Ca
BMW does it right (Score:2)
The BMW speech recognition for the vehicle's functions works really well too. If you're busy you also have a live concierge to help with almost anything.
BMW's iDrive is amazing, it's engineered so that you rarely have to take your eyes off the ro
Re: (Score:2)
the JVC aftermarket stereo in my wifes car works just like this. Except you press and hold the mute button on the steering wheel.
Flawed study with idiots at the wheel. (Score:2)
Current ios version with siri plugged into a charger. "hey siri, call home" works perfectly and I dont have to touch it.
What did they use? an iphone 3S for their study? I have more of an argument with my HTC ONE M8 trying to get freaking voice dialing to work. Android has utter crap for it's dialing capabilities and needs to be updated.
yes I carry and daily use an M8 and a 5C, so I know more about this than 90% of you.
correlation my ass (Score:2)
Has anyone made a study of how much mobile usage in a car does NOT result in crashes?
I can guarantee that 100% of crashes involved oxygen, so we really must ban oxygen use in cars.
It should be pretty obvious that another missing, presumed unconsidered, dimension is people's ability to choose when they might reasonably use a mobile device whilst driving, and for how long.
a temporary period of distraction (Score:2)
Put someone in a driving simulator and have them do something that might distract them. Does that make sense?
Put ME in a driving simulator and I'm already distracted. This isn't my car. The instruments aren't in the right places. It's confusing! And now you hand me a complicated device to use while 'driving'?
I had a bit of distraction the first few times I used the bluetooth system in my car. It could have been dangerous. The microphone was in the ceiling and the incoming via the radio, controls on the stee
Cherry picking. (Score:2)
I find it interesting that the article mentions three kind of distraction; cognitive distraction, visual distraction and physical distraction yet only measures cognitive distraction. I would think that the sum of all three distraction modes would be the definitive indicator as to what whether hand held or hands free is better. For example, I bet hand held has much higher visual and physical distraction numbers than hands free.
Yet another study to prove a theory rather than do a complete test.
How is it (Score:2)
That pilots aren't distracted while communicating to ground controllers or flight deck crews? Are drivers similarly distracted by conversations with passengers?
I sense something amiss here
Re: (Score:2)
I must agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:latest update! (Score:4, Funny)
Hell, a billboard's sole purpose is to garner your attention but interestingly enough, nobody seems to care about those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The nearest beach is 528 miles east. - Siri
Re: (Score:2)
Passengers are present in the car with you and are aware of the surrounding conditions. Someone on the phone is not.
Re: (Score:2)
I said passengers, not kids. Kids are an entirely different life form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PARIS: Look, we could spend weeks trying to solve this, but we've got a ticking clock. Engines are working, weapons systems are online. I say we launch now and hope for the best.
TUVOK: Mister Paris, that is perhaps the most illogical statement you've ever made. Unless we find a way to reconfigure the structural integrity field the hull will incur microfractures during descent.
PARIS: Microfractures, Tuvok. Doesn't necessarily mean we'll have a hull breach.
TUVOK: And if we do, I suppose these useless design e
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for reminding my how stupid and anti star trek that show was.
Re: (Score:2)
I once had a ride on an small airplane, and every control knob had a different shape so they could be identified by touch. I think the knob that put the wheels down was actually shaped like a small tire with treads and all. The throttle was a round ball (does balls to the wall come from that?) The flap control was shaped like a little flap. It made a lot of sense. Pretty hard to do that with a touch screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Its several years ago, I am sure, that we heard of touch screens with "pixels" that vibrated to give a touchable image. I believe one used piezo pixels, and the other had pulsating voltages, but I am not certain of either.
I believe Microsoft bought one of the (at least two) competing technologies. Given the potential for keyboards you can actually feel, and porn apps, I am surprised the technology is not already in high end phones.
More use in a touch screen t
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing distracting about that for moderately competent people.
Out of interest why are you even here? If science doesn't work neither does your computer.
This has been tested time and time and time again. If you're doing anything like that then your reactions WILL be slowed down. The end. And once you're calling home, same. It's been shown time and again that such things also slow down your reactions.
So once again, the idiots of the world spoil it for everyone else.
In this case, the idiot is you an
Re: (Score:2)
The good thing about this case though, is that emergency services will be on their way before you have the accident.
Re: (Score:2)
"Call home."
"Did you say, 'Call 911?'"
"No."
"Thank you, calling 911."
And that is the moment it gets distracting...
Interesting point. I've never had trouble RECEIVING phone calls over my car bluetooth. But I recently tried to make a call, and with all the problems getting the POS to understand me, I was pounding on the dashboard and yelling all sorts of obscenities at my car. Luckily, I was still parked when I made the call, or I probably would have crashed into something.
Re: (Score:2)
Talking to another person in the car seems to be a part of the usual driving experience since cars were invented. Presumably no-one believes that is something that one should ban. I understand that the passenger might be looking out the window which overall ups the total amount of attention being spent on the road, but that's not always the case.
I think that there is something else about the experience of using hands-free phones that makes them more of a distraction at all phases of the call. I'd be intere
Re:just dont (Score:5, Insightful)
Drive the car. No one cares if you have to go back out and pick up that special thing from the grocery store. Coordinate that before you get in the car..
Drive the goddamn car.
But, no...you're a special snowflake that can do all of it at once, perfectly and all the time.
Hint...no, you can't. You're just a flake.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. The distance driven is a major contributing factor towards getting in a car wreck. When something comes up at the last minute, if you change directions to take a more optimal path immediately (as opposed to going all the way home and then going back out), you not only reduce your exposure to accidents
Re: (Score:2)