Siri's Creator Challenges Texting-While-Driving Study

waderoush writes "A rash of media reports last week, reporting on a study released by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, implied that using voice-to-text apps like Siri or Vlingo while driving is no safer than manual texting. But Adam Cheyer, the co-inventor of Siri, says journalists took the wrong message from the study, which didn't test Siri or Vlingo in the recommended hands-free, eyes-free mode. In the study, researchers asked subjects to drive a closed course while they held an iPhone or Android phone in one hand, spoke messages into Siri or Vlingo, proofread the messages visually, and pressed buttons to send the messages. Under these conditions, driver response times were delayed by nearly a factor of two, the researchers found. 'Of course your driving performance is going to be degraded if you're reading screens and pushing buttons,' says Cheyer, who joined Apple in 2010 as part of the Siri acquisition and left the company two years later. To study whether voice-to-text apps are really safer than manual texting, he says, the Texas researchers should have tested Siri and Vlingo in car mode, where a Bluetooth headset or speakers are used to minimize visual and manual interaction. 'The study seems to have misunderstood how Siri was designed to be used,' Cheyer says. 'I don't think that there is any evidence that shows that if Siri and other systems are used properly in eyes-free mode, they are 'just as risky as texting.''"

Comments

They're doing it wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure a couple of other posters will point that out :)

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[fustakrakich]

Yes, most people drive while in the brain-free mode. Self driving cars can't come soon enough.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm. When did this post become political? There are websites for those kind of discussions, please take them there.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[skywire]

You're new 'round here, aintcha?

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AaronLS]

" letting Texas A&M Transportation Institute do a study"

What do you mean "letting"?

Are you implying that our government should be in the business of banning universities from conducting experiments and studies?

What does the FCC post have to do with a transportation study?

That post is usually hand picked to be someone that will represent the elected president's agenda. For example, Bush picked Colin Powel's son as his FCC chairman, because of course they wanted hands off regulation, which is a bit ironic because that's what FCC does. Pretty much the Ron Swanson of FCC.

Stop trying so hard. If you squint your eyes hard enough you will see a conspiracy in anything.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

So it's Obama's fault that TTI used the "handsfree" devices in the most used, not "recommended" modes? When the makers whine about the use being "not handsfree" can they tell us what percentage of use is handsfree? No? So the makers are complaining to defend their product, not because the test was actually not valid.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[Eskarel]

The test is valid, but the conclusions drawn from it are utter bullshit. This study proves, not hugely surprisingly, that removing the actual typing process doesn't significantly improve the safety of drivers. What everyone has drawn from this is that hands free texting isn't safer than regular texting. That may or may not actually be the case, but this study doesn't come close to proving it one way or the other.

It's a bit like when they Mythbusters did the hands free driving stuff, the studies aren't wrong as such, but given most people don't pay have conversations requiring that level of concentration whlie driving it doesn't really prove what they tried to conclude.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

given most people don't pay have conversations requiring that level of concentration whlie driving

Why are you assuming that? Is it because you like texting while driving and you want it to be legal because you think you are doing it safely? You sound like the alcoholics in the 1980s. "I haven't crashed, so I must be safe".

Anything distracting reduces safety.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[flyneye]

Yes, it was quicker than saying "let them get away with" and everyone but pedantic ol' you seems to have gotten it.
As for the rest of it, It was a comparison of two situations, I guess you didn't get it.
If you blow off everything as a "conspiracy theory" , I guess your meds are working.
Try reading more slowly.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

What common script? Given that you've been modded down and every reply apparently doesn't get it, I don't think it's me who is the dumbshit.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[flyneye]

So, what? There's plenty of idiots who mod down what they disagree with or don't understand fully. I've read your replies for months, you're right, you don't think and you're a dumbshit.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[Holi]

I'd mod you down but I went back and checked you posts, modding you down would be a waste of my points since your just as big an idiot as the gp.

You guys deserve each other.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

Your reply shows you are willing to lie about what someone said to push your provably wrong opinion as fact. I've read your posts for a day, and that's all you've got.

And woo, I got my own stalker/lurker, reading me for months. Even if you think I'm an idiot, I'm apparently an interesting one, or you are an even bigger idiot.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[flyneye]

Umhmm, you got a stalker. Well, you're so damn special I bet you got a bunch of stalkers.
No, you pretty consistently post in articles I bother with.
Besides if someone gave a damn about your inane babble they'd just go to http://slashdot.org/~AK+Marc. I couldn't be bothered.
Mostly you just want someone to argue with. It's thawed out, go out the door and go argue.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

It's thawed? How would I know. I've pointed out a number of times that I have moved out of AK, even if I lived there when I picked my name. None of my regular pseudonyms were available, and my full name is depressingly unique, and the obsessive people here would be more likely to target someone who says something they don't like than I was willing to chance. It's fall where I am, not spring.

And my idiotic babble is usually a well reasoned retort. Even if I'm labeled inane because I spread an undesirably truth.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[flyneye]

Hey, the world doesn't revolve around Alaska, we freeze and thaw here too.
Wha'd you do move to Chile?
No your idiotic babble is always your invulnerable-to-reason-unimaginative-self-absorbed opinion du jour. Your truth usually amounts to popular versions that protect your ego from the less desirable aspects of existence. It hasn't made conversation, so much as given you a faux sense of superiority.
I doubt that most of science or history would be enjoyable playgrounds for you. That leaves you with math, go figure.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

Since all your guesses about me are wrong, I can only take your mis-aimed complaints as compliments. When the idiots all hate you, you are doing something right.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[Meski]

Pretty much. The point is it's diverting attention from driving, its not about the button pushes or glances off the road. How much depends on the message/conversation. A request from someone to pick up a litre of milk? Not really a problem. A request to do a job interview on the phone? (real example) I had a problem with that :(

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AaronLS]

We are here looking at a collection of interesting images, that are not inflammatory in the least, and you bring some political bullshit into the mix. What more is there to get?

I pointed out how baseless and nonsensical your ramblings are. I think it is clear that you are trying to hard. All the attributes of a good conspiracy theory. Even the fact you are here completely out of context and offtopic, like the crazy guy screaming on the corner. You even brag about your ignorance of how off topic you are. It's one thing to comment based on the summary without reading the article, it's a whole other thing to comment on presumed content that is neither in the summary nor the content of the article, simply because you want an excuse to cry to everyone about your bullshit. If how you came to the conclusion that your ramblings were appropriate here, then it's a good indication of how you formed your opinions.

I don't blow off everything as conspiracy theory. I don't mind someone with a different opinion, if it is formed on some level of rational thought, rather than on assumptions and ignorance.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[flyneye]

Politics is part of life, I made an analogy between situations. If you are inflamed, you chose to be. Take responsibility for your thoughts and special feelings.
If you could make no sense of what I said, take some remedial reading courses.
I make no all purpose claim of conspiracy, I just point up historical evidence I have seen and highlight it in the way it appears, draw your own conclusions, just as well as your gray matter lets you.
Don't like the way I write? Who fuckin' asked you? I never claimed to be running for some popularity contest.
If what I write sounds crazy, it's because I'm writing about something crazy.
I hate to think 98% of the population is so stupid that they will do the same thing over and over for a century and expect different results. It makes me feel like I'm on the "Planeta do los Retards". The fact that I consistently hear wimpy whinings like yours ,only bolsters evidence before me.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[Eskarel]

I'm assuming that because I've never seen anyone trying to solve math problems while driving their car through an obstacle course(or anywhere else for that matter) and when I do talk on my phone hands free, I stop listening to the person when I need to pay attention to the road. The Mythbuster's driving tests prove that you can't solidly focus on the road and solidly focus on driving simultaneously, while an interesting if not unexpected result, this doesn't actually test what people actually do and if you want to prove something is dangerous you need to actually test it.

Hands free texting may be massively dangerous, it may not, the test they did doesn't prove one way or another because it doesn't test hands free texting, it tests a slightly less involved version of hand texting.

In terms of your personal attack on me, I don't text while driving, hands free or otherwise and I wouldn't be dramatically surprised if hands free texting isn't massively safer than non hands free version, I just wish people would actually fucking test the thing they're claiming. Test people driving having ordinary conversations, test people using actual hands free, and in an ideal world actually take the results you get and extrapolate them to real driving conditions(ie, if talking on the phone hands free increases the time before you react by half a second, how often do people actually encounter circumstances where that matters and could those circumstances be dealt with better by maintaining a larger follow distance?). How many deaths does hands free talking on the phone actually cause? From what I can see looking at the road toll statistics there hasn't been any kind of significant upward movement since cell phones became popular, if anything the road toll appears to be going down.

Do I like talking on the phone when I'm driving, yes, yes I do, it makes my boring commutes less boring and allows me to keep in touch with my family that live on the other side of the world(my commute is perfectly timed for calling them). Will I consider reasonable evidence that doing so is significantly increasing my likelihood of endangering myself and/or others? Of course I will, but I won't accept another bogus study where they test circumstances which are different than anything anyone ever does then claim the end of the world based on something they didn't actually test and work to ban yet another thing. The way we're going now they'll have to ban phones, radios and other people from our cars and then we still won't actually react quickly enough, or still won't see the oncoming car, or will go apeshit bored and start daydreaming and become even less safe.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

Hands free texting may be massively dangerous, it may not, the test they did doesn't prove one way or another because it doesn't test hands free texting, it tests a slightly less involved version of hand texting.

It tested the common usage, not the "ideal." The common usage of hands-free texting is distracting. I'm not sure why you are arguing over that.

The Mythbuster's driving tests prove [...]

That you assert Mythbusters "proves" anything indicates you don't know what "proves" means, and that's the root of the problem.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[Eskarel]

Is that the common method of hands free texting? I've never seen anyone do it(I've seen people text not hands free, but that's not what this was testing either) and the fact that holding onto your phone and looking at it is dangerous doesn't seem like a particularly revolutionary concept to me. The interesting question is "is hands free texting safer than non hands free texting? Whether people are actually doing it that way is largely beside the point when it comes to setting up legislation. In parts of Australia it is illegal to even touch your phone while driving, which makes this kind of texting already illegal, but what about legitimate hands free? Does that need to be regulated to or is it ok?

As for Mythbusters, I'd specifically mentioned it in my previous point as another example of "testing the wrong damned thing", they aren't the only people to have done this particular experiment(drive people through an obstacle course while making them have a conversation requiring detailed attention), but they're probably the example most folks have seen.

Fundamentally the point is that the headlines off this study say "Hands free texting isn't safer", but if you're holding the damned phone in your hand and pressing buttons it's not bloody hands free is it? We can have a discussion about how many people actually text hands free, or whether hands free actually works properly, but that doesn't change the fact that the "findings" of this study are both unsurprising and not what has been claimed.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

I've seen lots of people texting in traffic. I've never seen anyone doing so completely hands-free. Though how would I know if I saw it? Given the numbers I've seen for texters and the number of texters I see, nobody is using hands free texting. It may not be scientific, but direct observation is sufficient to convince me.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[Eskarel]

You're analyzing the wrong thing, just like the original study.

We know that people text while driving and while holding the phone. We know this is relatively common. We know that this isn't particularly safe(how many accidents it actually causes I don't know). This is pretty much a done deal.

People may or may not text partially hands free, I've personally never seen anyone do it while inside the car with them, nor does it make any particular sense, I sure as hell don't push buttons on my phone to make hands free calls. Whether they do so is largely immaterial and the fact that it is not significantly safer than texting without hands free while useful from a perspective of completeness isn't hugely surprising(taking your eyes off the road is a recipe for disaster and taking a hand off the wheel is going to make responding to an emergency somewhat more difficult at best).

What we don't know is whether, assuming people text in a completely hands free manner(ie both hands on the wheel, eyes on the road), is it much than texting in the traditional manner. This is the interesting question because if it is, we can say that it is and hopefully encourage people to move towards using this technique. Banning people from touching their phones is all well and good, but given enforcement is going to be fairly minimal, getting people to stop doing what they want is going to be somewhat challenging. If on the other hand we can say to people "hey, if you use the feature your phone already has you can still text with your friends, but you can do it in a way that is X times safer, we might be able to change behavior. By saying "hands free texting is just as dangerous" especially when you haven't actually proven that, you're just saying "keep texting like you are because any change won't make things any better". People are really poor at judging low probability high impact risks, so barring a cop on every street corner or blocking texting within a vehicle for everyone, we're probably not going to stop it.

Re:They're doing it wrong!

[AK Marc]

The studies show that it isn't the eyes moving off the road, but the attention moving off the road that's the problem. Your diversion to the involvement of the hands in hands-free is a red herring. Focusing attention off the road is the problem. Pointing your eyes up and at the road doesn't do you any good if your attention is on your phone and sending a message such that you aren't consciously processing your vision. They've shown that non-hand/eye activities cause levels of distraction equal to a phone call using a hand.

"proofread the messages visually"

[kruach aum]

Really all you need to know.

Re:"proofread the messages visually"

[kruach aum]

Well I guess in addition to everything else you need to know to lead a productive and successful life, as well as the context of this article.

one more distraction while driving

[bloodhawk]

I thought it has been long established through research that even a hands free cradle talking on the phone is a dangerous distraction while driving, Can't see how this can be less of a distraction than that even if it is better than manual texting. People have enough accidents without additional distractions.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[prelelat]

Yes and talking to someone in the car is distracting too. So is having kids kicking you in the back of the seat, changing radio stations. Billboards with flashy lights are distracting or they wouldn't have them. Oh I'm sure I'm missing a few more things.

My point is, is that there are a ton of distracting things going on around us as we barrel down the road. The question is, is one more safe than the other. It would be logical that if you can speak to the device instead of type it would be safer. Having your head down and hand off the wheel or if your driving a standard no hand on the wheel or some form of wtf. Having these studies are important for trying to understand how safe something is so we can judge if it's within an acceptable margin. I think texting manually falls into being unsafe and I don't want to share the road with people that are doing it.

It would appear speaking into Siri or other applications that do speech to text hasn't been studied enough to make a final decision, but I think it's going to end up OK. This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[s.petry]

I think the complaint is based on the perception that visual distraction is way worse than any other form of distraction while driving. The problem of course, is that we know that visual processing is not the only inhibitor.

Think of all the times you almost caused an accident when emotionally distressed for example. I can name a dozen easily, where I was so (insert emotional state like angry, excited, sad) where I simply lost focus on the road. Talking while driving may invoke a similar emotional responses, even if a service is translating the speak to text.

That example out of the way, there are numerous other situations where I have been similarly distracted. Thinking about a problem I needed to solve, sometimes coming up with that solution while driving.

So I agree with the person that visual distraction bad, but he neglects the fact that visual distraction is not the only distraction people face while driving.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[spire3661]

My anecdotal evidence is that i should focus on piloting my vehicle and not fiddling with gadgets, and I frickin love gadgets.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[icebike]

Yes and talking to someone in the car is distracting too.

Actually, its not that distracting.

Other people in the car are aware of traffic conditions, they actually stop talking, they even point out dangerous situations (even fi from the back seat). Talking to a person in the passenger seat may actually be beneficial to driver safety.

Having a conversation on the phone, that requires concentration, can certainly be distracting, but even the simplest text message is far more distracting. All of the tests of this kind of stuff were done asking people to solve simple math problems or word games on the phone while driving over a challenging course in an unfamiliar vehicle.

Yaking on the bluetooth about nothing in particular while stuck in stop and go traffic simply isn't that dangerous as long as its hands free. The studies suggesting talking on the phone (hands free) is dangerous simply isn't born out by accident statistics. Texting while driving is born out by accident statistics.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[JustOK]

It's only logical if the facts support it.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[blackraven14250]

It depends on the person talking too. 2 kids, or 2 individuals that have never driven, are likely to not be paying the kind of attention needed to give that feedback, while 2 experienced drivers will.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Something else that was established through long-standing research was all the discrete software that makes up Siri. Quoting Wikipedia, bad form but meh:

Siri is a spin-out from the SRI International Artificial Intelligence Center, and is an offshoot of the DARPA-funded CALO project.[35][36]

So Siri's "marketer" is much more accurate than "creator". Moreover it's really stealing the credit of someone else's collaborative and state-funded work. - You can build your own Siri-like platform as weekend project or two since it's based on FOSS.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[rolfwind]

Humans are inherently unsafe behind the wheel and I look forward to computers either aiding us or taking full control soon.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Ceriel Nosforit]

...and in belated review my form was badder than it should. Point still stands.

"In the first four years of the project, CALO-funded research has resulted in more than five hundred publications across all fields of artificial intelligence. "
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALO

Re:one more distraction while driving

[bloodhawk]

I think from memory (though happy to be corrected) is that the difference was found that people in the car interacting are at least aware of the current situation whereas someone on the phone has no awareness whatsoever of the conditions you are speaking in and may distract you at the worst possible moment whereas at least someone in a car has some vague awareness of the dangers, Radio is passive and yeah kids are probably also a huge distraction but that doesn't mean you should just automatically say fuck it we may as well provide an even greater amount of risk to those in and around you as we can't control everything. You control what you can, and this distraction is certainly unnecessary and easily avoided.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[waderoush]

Do your homework, please. Adam Cheyer was one of the lead investigators at SRI on the CALO project before the contextual-search technology was married with voice-to-text and text-to-voice technology and spun out as Siri.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Kids in the car, and speaking to people in the car, have been found far safer. Othe people in the car, even kids, notify you of other issues around the car and are aware of the environment and when to shut up.

I've tried Vlingo and Siri in the car, They're as bad, or worse, than using the phone.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Isaac Remuant]

Yep. Talking with other people in the car should be illegal. Music should be illegal, remove radios from cars. In fact, GPS are also distracting, take em away!

Re:one more distraction while driving

[characterZer0]

The sound quality coming from other people in the car is great. The sound quality from your phone is compartively terrible. Your brain has to do a lot of extra work to parse language coming from a low-quality source, which impairs your ability to drive. I would be interested in a comparison between talking on the phone and listening to AM talk radio.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter how the software was intended to be used, only how the software will be used.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[rtb61]

Some countries require that all street side signage be submitted for approval and if too large or distracting they are banned. Your point is, if you have a 'FEW' distracting things going on what is the problem with adding even more, I think you have pointed out the flaw in your thinking, your are adding more distraction, which further degrades driving attention. As for those tests, they are specifically tests, not day to day distracted driving and lack all of your existing distractions to show the additional burdens for attention.

The crazy bat shit logic of somehow adding new problems auto-magically eliminates other problems rather than compounding them and making them far worse. One hopes you become a victim of your statistic and see how your opinion changes.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Ceriel Nosforit]

I did it on the CALO project when Siri first hit the news. - He appears to be the lead for SRI's contribution to the CALO project. I don't know the extent of that contribution.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[doom]

I thought it has been long established through research that even a hands free cradle talking on the phone is a dangerous distraction while driving, Can't see how this can be less of a distraction than that even if it is better than manual texting. People have enough accidents without additional distractions.

Oh please, issues like that pale in significance compared to the important business of selling the latest consumer crap electronics.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Not nearly as dangerous as talking to a passenger in the car. I see people every day looking to their right and not at the road.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[AaronW]

Additionally it has been shown that the phone is especially bad since it's a lot harder for your brain to process, especially over a cell phone due to the sound degradation due to all of the audio compression. I don't recall exactly where I heard this, likely on NPR Science Friday or one of the science magazines I subscribe to, but it makes sense. The brain has to do a lot more work to comprehend poor-quality speech than face-to-face speech, and the brain doesn't multitask all that well so it causes a much bigger distraction to driving.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[AaronW]

I recall hearing this at one point. I don't recall if it was in one of my science magazines or on NPR's Science Friday but it makes a lot of sense, especially now that we know that the brain is not all that great at multitasking like we once thought.

I also would love to see more studies on this.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[stephanruby]

This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.

Before one can say the study is garbage, one has to ask if people really do use Siri (or vlingo) as those applications were designed to be used while driving. Personally, I can not say either way, I couldn't even use Siri (or vlingo, google voice search) while driving even if I wanted to. No application is capable of understanding my accent under any circumstance, let alone while driving.

Whatever happens, please do not force Siri to be used only when the car is stopped. I have a friend who's Prius built-in control panel only works for certain functions when the car is stopped, so she'll slow her car to less than 5 miles an hour on the freeway just so that *her* passenger can type in an address into the gps (thereby creating a dangerous situation where there shouldn't have been one to begin with).

And yes, a Prius is smart enough to detect if a passenger is in the passenger seat, because it does beep until such a passenger fastens his/her seat belt, but apparently, it's not smart enough to enable all the functions of the built-in computer panel while the car moving, even when such a passenger is present.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to computers either aiding us or taking full control soon.

More likely first they'll aid us and then get rid of the pesky, sub-optimal, humans and assume full control of everything. We could call the control-freak robot overlord Stalin (which means "steel" in Russian).

Re:one more distraction while driving

[waderoush]

My understanding is that Adam was one of the key people developing the AI behind Siri -- the contextual awareness stuff that makes Siri pretty good at figuring out what you want and relating your request to available resources. Sorry to snap at you earlier, sometimes Slashdot makes one surly.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[AK Marc]

It would appear speaking into Siri or other applications that do speech to text hasn't been studied enough to make a final decision, but I think it's going to end up OK. This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.

So, you know for a fact that users are actually using them as intended in the car? My wife uses Siri in the car all the time. It's legal "hands-free". But she doesn't ever use a headset. So she's not using it in the "intended" manner. If most follow her lead, then the study is valid. As you are so certain it's invalid, then you must have some information about what percentage of people use them "as intended", otherwise the only piece of garbage here isn't the study, but your post.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[fnj]

I call bullshit on whatever it is that you heard. Sound quality on a mobile is ridiculously good unless/except-if it is actually breaking up due to marginal conditions. The head of NPR or the popular science magazine is up its ass.

Any distraction is caused by some degree of thinking about something other than driving due to the subject matter of the conversation, exactly the same whether it is a passenger or a voice on a phone.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Culture20]

The sound quality coming from other people in the car is great. The sound quality from your phone is compartively terrible. Your brain has to do a lot of extra work to parse language coming from a low-quality source, which impairs your ability to drive. I would be interested in a comparison between talking on the phone and listening to AM talk radio.

I recall hearing this at one point. I don't recall if it was in one of my science magazines or on NPR's Science Friday but it makes a lot of sense

Yeah, NPR would say that about AM radio.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[fnj]

It doesn't matter how the software was intended to be used, only how the software will be used.

So all progress should cease because no one will use technology properly and any outlier who will use it properly should be penalized by not allowing its use. You don't believe it is possible to educate people to use technology properly and conduct their activities without putting innocent lives at risk. What a ray of sunshine you are.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[SkimTony]

I don't think the study was garbage, but I don't think it was all that helpful. They should've tested the recommended configuration and mode; if that turned out to be safer, then you could use the study to encourage people to change their behaviour. This study a) draws blanket conclusions it wasn't designed to test, and b) doesn't answer the most relevant question, i.e., "Is texting still bad if you don't have to look away from the road?"

Re:one more distraction while driving

[getmerexkramer]

Strawman level 5 complete!

Re:one more distraction while driving

[AK Marc]

I disagree. It's a valid result for what they tested. If the makers want to fund one where it's used as "intended" then they can. If the results differ, then we can look into using them in a more "recommended" manner and change the used manner that was tested. The study made conclusions based on the test results.

Re: one more distraction while driving

[pchasco]

I call your call of bullshit. I have an iphone 5 with sprint, and I can say that cell phone audio quality is NOT ridiculously good. I do have difficulty understanding people sometimes, and it is certainly distracting. And hands free texting is even more distracting than hands on, in my experience. Because Siri is so often wrong, I must always visually confirm the text. And when it's wrong, it typically takes a great deal of tapping and dragging and typing to replace the words that were in error. That is I do the manual correction after about three attempts at getting Siri to work. Needless to say, I don't use Siri anymore. Google speech recognition was much better in my experience but still not good enough to talk and hit send without looking.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[prelelat]

I guess I may be a little biased because while I haven't used siri I have used my Motorola roadster to write up text responses, and answer the phone while driving. I can also make a call with one press of a button but usually don't(even though it's legal where I am to do so). I find it thousands of times more safe to do than text by hand, which I will have to admit I did years ago when I first got my blackberry(I'm quite ashamed to admit now).

Also your friend frightens me.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no strawman argument so complete as the one that calls a legitimate claim a strawman argument.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[AaronW]

I wish I had such a phone that sounded ridiculously good. I have never heard cell phone that sounds anywhere close to a good land-line connection. Show me a cell phone where the wait music doesn't sound like a garbled mess. All the compression makes cell phone audio sound like crap that no amount of hardware can fix. My digital land line is always crystal clear and the sound quality is night and day compared to any cell phone, even going over a good bluetooth connection through either of my car's stereos.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[AaronW]

The only thing I can think of is that you must not live in the US.

Here's a comparison demonstrating the crappy sound of our cell phones:

http://www2.windmobile.ca/en/Pages/network.aspx

Much of the world has already adapted HD Voice but not the US where we are stuck with the crappy standard cell codecs and bitrates.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[ET3D]

The phone conversation distraction is precisely why something like Siri would be a good alternative. Texting isn't immediate, so there's less pressure to respond immediately or someone who continuously hammers at your ears.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and talking to someone in the car is distracting too. So is having kids kicking you in the back of the seat, changing radio stations. Billboards with flashy lights are distracting or they wouldn't have them. Oh I'm sure I'm missing a few more things.

If we were in the 70's...... Except the kids part..

Obviously I take the study Texas A&M did, into consideration, but they said the people using the voice service, had to recheck, and then push a button in order to to use the service anyway phones. The supposed co-inventor is saying these are unneeded steps when using headset or speakers, however even he himself goes on to say ""are used to minimize visual and manual interaction"" he comes out and says it is a distraction... interaction===distraction

Re:one more distraction while driving

[wonkey_monkey]

The head of NPR or the popular science magazine is up its ass.

And you are...?

Re:one more distraction while driving

[aevan]

Don't forget the backseat driver: "You're too close! Slow down! Why are you only doing 30? You realise this lane ends right?".
That's a whole different sort of 'feedback' than wanted.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[dkf]

Yeah, but a good "Oh shit! Look ahead of you!" is still better than having someone on the other end of a phone. The person calling has no idea what is going on at your end and cannot have such an idea. Well, not unless you're giving someone a running commentary or something, but that's really not the case we're worried about.

There's been enough experience with people having talkative passengers, using phones and texting while driving to actually ground it in statistics. Passengers are safer than calls, and texting is far more dangerous than both. (If you've got a passenger, let them take the call and do the texting; even safer still!)

Re:one more distraction while driving

[icebike]

First, i didn't find the difference that great in your linked page.
Second, I routinely get excellent sound on my android as long as the call is all on the same network.
If either end is on a different network sound is totally crappie. Especially if the other end is verizon.
I've called all the way to Australia and had better calls then calling across town to a Verizon customer.

I've had one caller who i call frequently to discuss technical software issues, where no amount of shouting could be understood. We bboth installed a sip client where the call quality is phenomenal.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[tehcyder]

Yes and talking to someone in the car is distracting too.

Actually, its not that distracting.

Talking to someone in the car is not hugely distracting as long as you don't turn towards them to speak.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I call B.S. on you. I work in cellular, and I know for fact that audio is down sampled to 12.2kbps, and it's not using what one would call an elaborate compression routine as it was put in to use in the 1980s, and god only knows when it was developed. It's called vocoding.

The audio quality over a cell network is generally considered to be about 1/5 to 1/8 the quality of a landline phone, and that's still a long shot from talking to somebody in person.

And poor audio quality takes more brain power, sit in on my machine learning class where the prof has a heavy Chinese accent as case and point, it's a lot of work just to understand what he's saying, let alone understand the context. You walk out of the class listening to his lecture physically exhausted.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[tehcyder]

I have a friend who's Prius built-in control panel only works for certain functions when the car is stopped, so she'll slow her car to less than 5 miles an hour on the freeway just so that *her* passenger can type in an address into the gps (thereby creating a dangerous situation where there shouldn't have been one to begin with).

That's why they invented traffic cops isn't it? Surely she'll get caught and hopefully banned from driving for a couple of years at some point?

Re:one more distraction while driving

[tehcyder]

Think of all the times you almost caused an accident when emotionally distressed for example. I can name a dozen easily, where I was so (insert emotional state like angry, excited, sad) where I simply lost focus on the road. Talking while driving may invoke a similar emotional responses, even if a service is translating the speak to text.

That example out of the way, there are numerous other situations where I have been similarly distracted. Thinking about a problem I needed to solve, sometimes coming up with that solution while driving.

If you're that psychologically unstable you shouldn't have a driving licence in the first place.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[drinkypoo]

Yes and talking to someone in the car is distracting too.

Actually, its not that distracting.

Other people in the car are aware of traffic conditions, they actually stop talking, they even point out dangerous situations (even fi from the back seat). Talking to a person in the passenger seat may actually be beneficial to driver safety.

My phone doesn't yell "watch out", startling me as I dodge the incredible asshole I saw coming for ages, that my passenger has just become aware of as I do something about it, and feels compelled to tell me about even though I've already begun a maneuver.

The idea that passengers are aware and considerate is a laughable one. Most humans are too caught up in their experience to even consider anyone else around them during times of stress.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Or women in general as they tend to require more eye contact with the person they are talking to. I don't know how many times I've had a girl ask "Why aren't you paying attention to me?" and I have to respond "I am, I'm just staring at the road in an attempt to get you to since you keep looking over at me instead of watching the road." At which point she shuts up instead of continuing the conversation without eye contact.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[JasterBobaMereel]

Doing anything but having your undivided attention on driving will lower your ability to drive and increase the risk of having an accident

You have a driving licence to prove you can drive safely, and can be fined/jailed for the lack of quality of your driving so this is your responsibility

43,000 die as the result of traffic collisions in the USA each year... that's more than 14 9/11's every year ....

Adding any distraction should be considered dangerous

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

are aware of the environment and when to shut up.

Really? I'm not sure most adults know when to shut up, and kids certainly do not. Also, people listen to the radio. Does it know when to shut up? No. People have this incredible ability to tune that crap out when something else grabs their attention.

Maybe the current state of Siri and Vlingo are still not sufficient for safe in-car use (I haven't tried them, and this study doesn't shed much light on it), but let's not pretend there is some mysterious danger that applies only when talking with a device and not with someone in person. The world is full of distractions, and they all introduce some risk. Risk is a part of life. The important question is whether something causes and unacceptably high risk, and all this study tells us is what we already knew-- looking at a device to interact with it is unsafe while driving. Wow, I'm glad Texas A&M cleared that up for me. How would I know obvious things if not for them?

Re:one more distraction while driving

[zarthrag]

THIS!

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving alone, don't get lost make my turns, etc. Someone in the passenger seat: miss turns, get lost, drive less confidently.

Maybe its just me but someone in the car is just as bad as a cell phone. Sure, they'll warn you... too early or too late or about the wrong thing and cause you to panic stop.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you talking about a POTS or VOIP on your land-line connection? The POTS connection filters the frequencies to around 300-3400 hz which is enough to convey your basic speech, but looses a lot of nuance. Judging from my experience at work, VOIP is even worse.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Holi]

No they should test actual use conditions, not some preferred way the manufacturer says you should use it. Otherwise your findings don't match the real world.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

The compression algorithm used in cellular networks is optimized for voice. The quality of wait music does not correlate with the quality of voice transmission.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[SkimTony]

Can people change? Is learning possible? If so, then I think the more useful study is one where they examine the recommended use case. That way, we can test new methods of doing the same thing, and if we find a way that works better, people can adopt the better way! (I know, I know: wishful thinking.)

Your assertion, that researchers should only test "actual use conditions" (I didn't see the study where they surveyed people to find out these actual use conditions, but it must've been done, right?), carries the inherent co-assertion that people can't change, so we shouldn't bother studying new ways of doing things.

All this study shows is adherence to Murphy's Law: if people have the opportunity to do something the wrong way, they will.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

The guys point is that the drivers should not have been holding the phones. They are designed to use a blue tooth headset. This way both hands would be on the wheel. I agree that the study was bogus.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[desdinova 216]

what about paper maps, are those still allowed? or should people have the route memorized beforehand?

Re:one more distraction while driving

[icebike]

I call B.S. on you. I work in cellular, and I know for fact that audio is down sampled to 12.2kbps, and it's not using what one would call an elaborate compression routine as it was put in to use in the 1980s, and god only knows when it was developed. It's called vocoding.

Let me guess, you worked for verizon...

For the record, I get phenomenal voice quality calling GSM to GSM on the same network. But if either end is Verizon, call quality goes to total rubbish.

I listen to sports talk radio a lot.
You can tell the calls coming from Verizon. Total crap.

Re: one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Omg you people are insane. Siri works just fine when using Bluetooth, either over the sound system or a headset. I can have it read incoming texts with a tap to the headset, or have it send a new text, read it back to me, correct it, or send it. I don't have it write War and Peace. I text short, appropriate messages it will understand. I very, very rarely need to have it try again, but if I have to, it is very easy to do so. I do this all the time, with kids in the car. I carry on a good portion of my business like this. I love Siri. It works.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

My anecdotal evidence is that i should focus on piloting my vehicle and not fiddling with gadgets, and I frickin love gadgets.

Yeah, because a gadget telling you which way to go is far more distracting than getting lost.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[Isaac Remuant]

Ban them! definitively! The unfolding alone could cause a myriad of accidents.

Come to think of it, memorizing routes is dangerous as well. All that thinking while driving, removes focus. I'd say ban long travels. If you need to memorize it, better get a cab or something.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[jrumney]

It sounds like you have a vested interest in the failure of this study. Is there something wrong with doing the study properly, rather than rigging it to reinforce your preconceived notions that phone + driving = bad, mmkay?

Re: one more distraction while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha... phone on sprint and commenting about the audio quality not being good. When you send sound through the shit-encrusted filter that is sprint, you get shitty sound. You fucking muppet.

Re:one more distraction while driving

[s.petry]

It's called being human. I've been driving for 30+ years, and I don't think a dozen incidents where I was distracted is bad. I have 0 accidents and 0 tickets in that time, so am both mentally normal and a good driver.

If your mom passes away and you are on the way to the funeral home, and you are not emotionally distraught, I believe you should be considered psychologically unstable. Either that, or you are on some strong medication that removes your normal emotional responses. Either way, that does not make me abnormal.

Nice try at an ad hominem though douchbag.

Holding it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again we come to this type of confusion because people keep holding their iPhones wrong.

You're holding it wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, that's what this really comes down to isn't it? The user is 'using' the device in a way the designers didn't think very hard about.

Distraction.

[MrL0G1C]

When you're driving you should be concentrating on driving, that's it, anything else can lead to an accident because your mind is not on the task at hand.

So, no, you shouldn't be pissing about sending texts, if you don't like it, get a bus/train where you can text to your hearts delight.

If you're so f**kin important that you need to text, then get a chauffeur.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, gramps. So you never listen to the radio, eat/drink, talk to any passengers, look at anything but the road, etc? Riiiight.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're so f**kin important that you need to text, then get a chauffeur.

A chauffeur does not make someone "important".

Re:Distraction.

[Ironchew]

if you don't like it, get a bus/train where you can text to your hearts delight.

Among numerous other reasons, this is why we need a far more reliable public transportation system (The nearest bus stop where I live is almost 3 miles away and it only gets service once a day). If buses and trains were commonplace, law enforcement could penalize reckless/distracted driving far more harshly and the number of drivers texting while driving would quickly approach zero.

Re:Distraction.

[icebike]

People un-used to city traffic probably DO have to concentrate 100% on driving.

However this is not the norm for most people. You can drive down the freeway in light to moderate traffic and not have much of your conscious brain involved at all. You can arrive at your destination and not recall a single thing about the trip.

In anything but rush hour traffic or high density traffic on a crowded freeway, driving simply isn't that difficult. If it was, we wouldn't hand out driving licenses to anyone with a pulse. Because an awfully large percentage of people just don't have 100% to devote to the task.

There are times when everyone has to pay attention. But the vast majority of my driving, and probably most people's driving, can be managed almost automatically, leaving plenty of time to listen to the radio, or the person on the next seat, or the person on the bluetooth.

Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Among numerous other reasons, this is why we need a far more reliable public transportation system (The nearest bus stop where I live is almost 3 miles away and it only gets service once a day). If buses and trains were commonplace, law enforcement could penalize reckless/distracted driving far more harshly and the number of drivers texting while driving would quickly approach zero.

Move to a city? Most small cities these days have abundant public transportation.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

A chauffeur does not make someone "important".

Now, a butler, on the other hand, or a Japanese Maid, big difference...

Re:Distraction.

[AmazingRuss]

I tried this once with a local bus system. Two hours to anywhere in town... two hours back. Ok if you're a hobo, but kind of rough on working folk.

I wish it wasn't so... I hate driving.

Re:Distraction.

[0123456]

The nearest bus stop where I live is almost 3 miles away and it only gets service once a day

So you want the bus to run empty for three dozen trips a day just in case you decide to take it?

Re:Distraction.

[shawn(at)fsu]

I'll agree that most of a trip you feel like you're on autopilot the problem arises when something unexpected happens. If you have your eyes off the road when that unexpected happens you're a lot worse off than had you been paying attention. So yeah if you get to your destination safely then you can look back and say man that didn't take any conscious effort at all but that's not why you need to pay attention. You need to be on your toes for when something novel or out of the ordinary happens.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mostly right.
If nothing abnormal happens then driving on 'autopilot' in traffic or not won't cause fuckups.
As soon as something unexpected happens (an animal or kid runs in to the road, you blow a tire, someone tries to merge in to your car's volume) and you're on autopilot you're fucked.
It really is not that driving is hard, paying attention to be ready for the unexpected event is hard. It doesn't matter whether you're screwing with the car stereo or your phone, not being aware of what's going on around you is the problem.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.

I'll go even further and claim that it requires more than 100% of the faculties of 100% of people to truly drive responsibly (as in prioritizing the lives of others and fully accounting for the societal costs of ones own untimely demise). There are 10+ million auto-related accidents and tens of thousands of people killed on the road every year in the US. I'd venture to say that almost all can be avoided by people a) driving more slowly and b) paying more attention.

Americans have simply been conditioned to tolerate this carnage because automobiles are a huge driver of consumption, and increasingly a venue for consumption (of food, entertainment and advertising).

Re:Distraction.

[dgatwood]

Yes, exactly. This is why touchscreen controls in automobiles are a terrible idea, and more to the point, why using anything that cannot be operated almost entirely by feel is a terrible idea. Texting, of course, is one of the most extreme examples of that problem, because the amount of time you have to spend looking at the screen in order to actually read a block of text for correctness is significantly greater than the time it takes to choose an option from a familiar menu or find the volume control "buttons" on a screen.

IMO, there are only two options here: a HUD that lets your eyes stay focused on the road while glancing at the text, or cars that drive themselves. Anything else as a "solution" for the texting-while-driving-is-unsafe problem is pretty much doomed to failure, whether it is speech recognition or mechanical keyboards, because the error rate will always be too high for anyone to trust sending it without reading it first.

Re:Distraction.

[pollarda]

I'd gladly buy a bus or train.... It's just that they are so much more expensive.
Wouldn't crashing a bus or train though while texting be so much more catastrophic than when driving a car?

Re:Distraction.

[characterZer0]

People can get away pretty well navigating a road in light traffic, staying in the lane, and avoiding hitting other cars, which are large and easy to track and avoid without much attention. Which is all well and good until they hit pedestrians and cyclists.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a paramedic, let me point out that you're perhaps the four hundredth person I've known who took that attitude. I just hope that you're more fortunate than the majority of these.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting a key point. A visually distracted driver can't react as quickly as someone who already has eyes on the road. Visual 'awareness' is absolutely a requirement for anyform of responsible driving. That would be the primary reason they don't hand out licenses to folks that are blind or people with vision problems who haven't corrected them with a prescription.

If a person is distracted visually and not even paying attention to the road, they will potentially be delayed seconds, or possibly never even see the risk. When you're moving at 45, 55, or higher speeds, 2 seconds can easily result in an avoided accident. It's a very long time in relative terms.

This is the point I suspect the original parent was speaking to. Drivers are always distracted, but they typically can keep their eyes on the road while having a conversation and their hands on the wheel.

A study that pretends to test voice to text features, voice control, etc, but still requires someone to mimic non voice activities like pushing buttons and reading text from a screen is just a wasted study pretending to do something new when they have only done yet another study about texting while driving.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, there are only two options here: a HUD that lets your eyes stay focused on the road while glancing at the text. . .

Focusing on somthing and glancing away are mutually exclusive. Moreover, the mere act of thinking about something other than navigating the immediate environment is a dangerous distraction. Not dangerous enough to guarantee that you will crash, but dangerous insofar as any distraction, no matter how minor, can cause a crash in a situation where the absence of said distraction would allow the crash to be avoided.

There are seldom good technical solutions to behavioral problems. Elective distraction while driving is a behavioral problem.

Re:Distraction.

[dgatwood]

Focusing on somthing and glancing away are mutually exclusive.

Not at all. A properly designed HUD doesn't require your eyes to change focus. From the driver's perspective, you would be looking out at infinity and would still be able to read the text superimposed over what you're seeing out the window.

Moreover, the mere act of thinking about something other than navigating the immediate environment is a dangerous distraction.

Yes, but that is equally true whether you're parsing a text message or are formulating a counterargument to a particularly compelling discussion on talk radio. The only thing that makes text messaging unique is the fact that your eyes have to leave the road. Period. Remove that, and you've removed the only valid reason for text messaging bans other than ludditism.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. A properly designed HUD doesn't require your eyes to change focus. From the driver's perspective, you would be looking out at infinity and would still be able to read the text superimposed over what you're seeing out the window.

You are not supposed to be looking out at infinity when you are driving. You are supposed to be scanning in all directions (using mirrors where nec.) for hazards at all times. HUDs have never been "properly" designed to provide safe access to trivial distractions. They could be useful for intended distraction, such as warning of hazards that may be hard to aquire by human vision alone and require immediate priority.

Yes, but that is equally true whether you're parsing a text message or are formulating a counterargument to a particularly compelling discussion on talk radio. The only thing that makes text messaging unique is the fact that your eyes have to leave the road. Period. Remove that, and you've removed the only valid reason for text messaging bans other than ludditism.

The true "ludditism" is the refusal to recognize that the more that distracted driving is studied, the more it is clear that thinking about anything other than driving is a hazard. Distraction by radio is bad enough as it is.

Not to mention the luddite-esque irony of using a telephone to compose written messages.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ride a bike.

Re:Distraction.

[AK Marc]

It does anyway. The point is, if it's going to operate as such a massive money loss, why can't it at least be a useful money loss?

Re:Distraction.

[AK Marc]

I've never seen anyone accidentally drift out of their lane while texting from a train.

Re: Distraction.

[pollarda]

As I recall, someone crashed a train and/or subway while texting awhile back. Whether if caused the crash is really unknown other than texting got the blame.

Re:Distraction.

[dgatwood]

You are not supposed to be looking out at infinity when you are driving.

Um, yes you are. Infinity, as far as the human eye is concerned, is anything beyond about 20 feet, so except when you're looking in your mirrors (which you really don't need to do constantly, just occasionally), your eyes are almost always going to be at infinity while driving. Anything short of that means you're following too close behind the car in front of you.

The true "ludditism" is the refusal to recognize that the more that distracted driving is studied, the more it is clear that thinking about anything other than driving is a hazard. Distraction by radio is bad enough as it is.

First, that's the opposite of ludditism, which means rejection of technology, not rejection of scientific knowledge. Second, you can have my car radio when you pry it with a crowbar from my cold, dead dashboard. You can't eliminate all distractions, and it is stupid to try.

The goal of any driving-related safety improvements should be to minimize the distraction without being so invasive that people work around whatever solution you put in place. Passing laws against texting causes people to hide their phones while they text, resulting in them looking down even farther from the road, and thus driving even more dangerously. Driving modes that prevent visually reviewing your text messages don't help either, because most people don't want to send out text messages that make them look functionally illiterate, as is often the case with voice dictation under even the best conditions (which a noisy automobile ain't). Using HUDs, by contrast, can dramatically decrease the risk of sending a single text message, mitigating it so much that for the sane 99.9% of drivers who would use such things fairly infrequently, the additional risk of texting in that manner is likely to be lost in the statistical noise.

But of course, the best choice of all is to get the meatbag out from behind the wheel in the first place. That not only eliminates all risk from distractions, but also eliminates all risk from fatigue, illness, sudden cardiac arrest, seizures, sweat getting in your eyes, and probably hundreds of other risk factors.

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a driver (and one with a somewhat long commute), let me point out that it is impossible for someone to be 100% concentrated on driving for a significant amount of time. The monotony of ordinary driving will cause the mind to wonder or otherwise lose focus. I would even go so far to say that trying to stay 100% focused is counter-productive. You'll likely just make yourself weary and even more susceptible to an accident.

Realistically, being a responsible driver means being *ready* to focus. Any other activity must not interfere with observation of driving conditions and must be "disposable"-- something you can (and will) completely drop at a moments notice. That's true whether the activity is listening to the radio, talking with someone in the car, talking with someone on the phone, or just thinking about what you're going to have for dinner. I'll sometimes go silent in the middle of a sentence when talking to someone just because I see slowed traffic ahead.

Is this approach perfect? No. Are there many accidents from human error even when people follow these guidelines? Probably so. But expecting people to entirely focus on driving is not the solution. You might as well ask them to be a foot taller. There are limits to what people can do and some level of risk that must be accepted. From my experience, if reasonable caution is taken, then having a conversation with someone in the car or on a hands-free device does not significantly change that risk. Although there are times when people get too involved in a conversation, let's choose our battles. Texting is clearly unsafe, but a hands-free conversation can be handled responsibly just like having kids or other people in the car.

Anyone who thinks such distractions pose an unacceptable risk should put their energy towards progressing self-driving cars (and also better public transportation), not towards some witch hunt based on ill-constructed studies. As long as humans are driving, there will be accidents caused by human error.

Re:Distraction.

[ET3D]

Few people completely focus on driving. It's nearly impossible to drive for long periods and not think of anything else.

Re:Distraction.

[mjwx]

People un-used to city traffic probably DO have to concentrate 100% on driving.

Most people need to concentrate 100% on driving, the fact that some people think they're good enough to be able to chat away and text whilst driving is the reason we have a lot of crappy drivers.

However this is not the norm for most people. You can drive down the freeway in light to moderate traffic and not have much of your conscious brain involved at all. You can arrive at your destination and not recall a single thing about the trip.

Driving is not managed automatically.

You do need to be paying attention, you may not be committing it to memory but that does not mean you weren't paying attention.

Daydreaming on the highway is the easiest way for people to be killed.

Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.

Anyone who thinks you dont need to devote 100% of your attention to driving obviously hasn't driven much.

Its idiotic to think that you are good enough to be able to text and drive. If you think you're good enough, you're suffering from illusory superiority and my dash cam is full of idiots like this in near misses.

Re:Distraction.

[mjwx]

When you're driving you should be concentrating on driving, that's it, anything else can lead to an accident because your mind is not on the task at hand.

So, no, you shouldn't be pissing about sending texts, if you don't like it, get a bus/train where you can text to your hearts delight.

No, no, no,

You cannot possibly think of advocating personal responsibility and that people pay proper care and attention to their driving. No, no, no, this is not slash-acceptable, especially for driving, the most dangerous thing most of us will ever do throughout our lives.

Wont you think of the Chil^H^H^H^H Phone Companies.

Re:Distraction.

[JasterBobaMereel]

The difference is that at a moments notice can the driving get your undivided attention when needed, or are you too busy sending texts and making calls ....

We hand out driving licences to anyone with a pulse because of the lawsuits if we don't ....

Re:Distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does a monkey butler count?

Re:Distraction.

[icebike]

Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.

Anyone who thinks you dont need to devote 100% of your attention to driving obviously hasn't driven much.

Its idiotic to think that you are good enough to be able to text and drive.

Where did I say anything about being able to text and drive?

The next time you drive to work, as you shut off the car, ask yourself:
Did my mind wander at all during the trip, did I think about work, or the weekend?
Was the radio off all the time?
  Did I see any advertising signs along the way?
Did I see any cool cars or good looking girls along the way?
Did I have coffee or anything to eat?

If you answer yes to any of these, (and even if you lie to yourself and answer no) then I guarantee you that you did
not devote 100% of your attention to driving. People don't operate that way. Nobody does.
Not even posers on the internet.

Re:Distraction.

[icebike]

As a paramedic, let me point out that you're perhaps the four hundredth person I've known who took that attitude. I just hope that you're more fortunate than the majority of these.

As a normal human being, let me point out that you are delusional.

Next time you drive to work, when you get there, turn off the car, and ask yourself if you listened to the radio, though about work, saw any cute girls/guys, saw any advertising signs, notices a cool car, waved to a friend, hummed a tune, had a sip of coffee, munched a snack, snuffed out a cigarette, looked at your gps, checked your gas gage.

If you answer NO, then carry on.

But since you can't answer NO to every part of that question stop pontificating on the internet just because you have a patch sewn to your shirt. It doesn't make you an expert on human cognition.

Re:Distraction.

[quacking duck]

People un-used to city traffic probably DO have to concentrate 100% on driving.

However this is not the norm for most people. You can drive down the freeway in light to moderate traffic and not have much of your conscious brain involved at all. You can arrive at your destination and not recall a single thing about the trip.

It's even possible to hit a moose on the highway and drive another 40km without noticing your injuries or the severe damage to the car.

Pros AND Cons

[ganjadude]

they both exist. I can only speak for myself and people I know who have used voice commands while driving, however EVERYONE, myself included, will speak to their phone for the text, HOWEVER we all double check the msg before hitting send. I think that is where the issue lies. we simply dont trust siri or google voice or other text to type things to be 100% yet. and until that can be true (if it can ever be) it will never be as safe as simply driving and not doing other things.

Re:Pros AND Cons

[Nadaka]

Wait, can't siri read the text back to you before sending it?

Re:Pros AND Cons

[The Good Reverend]

Siri reads back the text by default if you're in the eyes-free mode. But her text-to-speech isn't always easy to understand, so it's hard to tell sometimes if she got it right.

Re:Pros AND Cons

[WillAffleckUW]

Siri reads back the text by default if you're in the eyes-free mode. But her text-to-speech isn't always easy to understand, so it's hard to tell sometimes if she got it right.

This is why I change Siri from a woman speaking to a man speaking in a deep Scottish accent. Makes it much clearer.

Once speech-to-text-to-speech becomes more common

[admdrew]

I don't really agree with this guy, based on how texting is currently done. Most of us like reading their texts (or proofreading speech-to-texts), and few of us use text-to-speech, so the "eyes free" situation really isn't that common. I *really* don't think that using "Siri is just as risky as texting" is misleading at all, in our current accepted usage.

It doesn't matter how Siri was designed

[rs1n]

The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode. That said, even if you were to consider only those who are aware of such features as your test subjects, I wonder if the data would be any different (provided the test subjects are not explicitly told they must use no-eyes mode and car-mode). I know that if car-mode and no-eyes mode puts many restrictions on Siri, then (for me), Siri would not be as useful.

Re:It doesn't matter how Siri was designed

[icebike]

The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode.

Hmmm, seems a little shallow to claim the research is valid when it blames the device for ignorance of the operator.

The real problem is something like 60 or 70% of the people have given up on SIRI all together because it just doesn't work all that well.

Re:It doesn't matter how Siri was designed

[rs1n]

The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode.

Hmmm, seems a little shallow to claim the research is valid when it blames the device for ignorance of the operator.

The real problem is something like 60 or 70% of the people have given up on SIRI all together because it just doesn't work all that well.

Except it doesn't blame the device for the ignorance of the operator. The ignorance of the operator is already a given -- they're texting while driving, or trying to do the equivalent thinking that the way they (mis)use Siri makes it safer to text. That they additionally are ignorant of the different modes only further supports the idea that texting while driving (regardless of how it is done) is generally less safer than not texting. At worst, they would simply need to modify it to say that "the way most people use voice-activated texting is no safer than typing" as opposed to just "voice-activated texting is no safer than typing." I would argue the former is rather redundant.

Re:It doesn't matter how Siri was designed

[fnj]

Yes; GP's attitude seems to be a massively popular one, as well as an absurd and irrational one. But we already knew people were stupid, and always want to force other people who aren't stupid to live with the results of that stupidity.

"Designed to be used" vs. "actually used"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the study tested Siri the way Siri is normally used, then how Siri was designed to be used is irrelevant.

Re:"Designed to be used" vs. "actually used"

[Bieeanda]

"Those bastards at the military, they took it and... and they twisted it! My invention was intended only for peaceful purposes, and they turned it into a weapon!"

Re:"Designed to be used" vs. "actually used"

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why Peter Hagelstein (who was the last credible voice spouting the cold fusion nonsense) lost his shot at tenure. If you work on X-ray lasers, they're *going* to be used for military reserch, and his work never *did* show any usefulness for medical research. Too expensive, and too dangerous to living tissue.

Re:"Designed to be used" vs. "actually used"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like knives? Come on.

Obviously it's relevant, in deciding whether to *ban the tool completely*, to determine whether it was used as intended.

Otherwise we should ban knives, baseball bats, coffee mugs, and anything else that can be used as a weapon.

Note: I hate Apple. But what I hate more is people making blanket rules to enforce common sense.

Re:"Designed to be used" vs. "actually used"

[skine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdhwTXwhA4c

Professor: It works! It works!

*car drives into hangar, stops, and passengers get out*

President: Professor?
Professor: You should not be here! This is private property!

*Professor turns around*

Professor: Mr. President! I'm so sorry.
President: Ah, good evening professor. This is Major Agnew. Major Agnew, Professor.
Professor: Mr. President, this is indeed an honor. I had no idea.
President: Well, our country has been pouring a lot of money into this secret research of yours. I thought we should find out what we've been paying for.
Professor: Indeed. It so happens you are here just in time. Mr. President, Major Agnew, I do not think you will be disappointed. Behold then! The Giant Death Ray!

*dramatic unveiling, Professor turns device on on*

President: Well I'll be!
Agnew: Professor, is that a laser?
Professor: Yes, Major Agnew, the Giant Death Ray is indeed a laser. And now perhaps you'll be so good as to place this simple tin of peaches into the path of my laser's beam.
Agnew: What!?
President: Do it, Major.
Professor: Please.

*Grimacing, Agnew places the tin of peaches in front of the laser*

*beep*

Professor: Gentlemen, the price of those peaches has just been ascertained electronically, and stored in the information banks of my Giant Death Ray. And thank you. Any questions.
Agnew: Well, one question obviously leaps to mind, Professor... uh... Professor...?
Professor: Death.
Agnew: ...Professor Death, is why on Earth you elected to name this contraption of yours the Giant Death R- oh I see.
President: Professor Death.
Professor: Mr. President.
President: I have a question. This laser of yours...
Professor: Death Ray, yes.
President: If you were to increase the intensity of its beam...
Professor: Yes, intensity, yes.
President: Could your Death Ray not also be used to...
Professor: Perform delicate eye surgery!? Yes!
President: No, what I'm asking Professor, is might this Death Ray not also have some, well, military application?
Professor: Giant Death Ray? A military application?
President: Yes.
Professor: Oh, yes, of course. A military application. Yes, I, why, I'll just go check.

*Professor grabs hammer, and starts pounding on the Giant Death Ray*

Professor: No!
Agnew: Professor Death!
President: Professor Death, you're destroying it!
Professor: Forgive me Mr. President, but I am a man of science not of war! I intended the Giant Death Ray to be used for good, not evil!

Re:"Designed to be used" vs. "actually used"

[Anonymous Coward]

People normally use knifes for cutting up food, so a blanket ban on knifes would be stupid. The question is, did the study test how people normally use Siri, or do people normally use Siri like its creator thinks they should. If people normally use Siri in a way that is distracting, then a blanket ban on using it while driving is appropriate because the risks outweigh the benefits. If people actually had common sense and could be trusted not to do stupid things while driving, then perhaps the ban wouldn't be necessary, sadly that isn't the case.

Driving Performance

[CanHasDIY]

Of course your driving performance is going to be degraded if you're reading screens and pushing buttons,'

See, shit like this is why the Prophet Hicks was so adamant in his belief that advertising people should do the world a favor and kill themselves.

FYI, asshole, it's an issue because humans cannot multitask, and every second you pay attention to that goddamn toy is one more second you're not paying attention to the road.

Perhaps Mr. My-Sales-Figures-Are-More-Important-Than-Your-Safety should read the stacks upon stacks of other studies that prove any distraction from driving is dangerous. Even talking to the guy in the passenger seat.

Re:Driving Performance

[stanlyb]

Actually, men cannot multitask, women are famous with this and some other "features", unlike men.

Re:Driving Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think women are that much better at multitasking when driving.

I personally think that some people can learn to multitask while driving - just takes a lot of practice. You can set up a controlled environment - driving a difficult route on a simulator while texting replies to various questions - and having a time limit to reply and reach the destination.

Any driver who can do that reliably and consistently is probably a safer driver than most people on the road including me.

Re:Driving Performance

[stanlyb]

Actually, i am speaking from scientific point of view. It is proven fact that women could do many things (up to 5) in the same time. That's why they are so good drivers. Also they don't need to turn left and right as their peripheral vision is pretty good, there are recorded cases of women with 180 degrees peripheral vision, believe it or not.
Do you need more facts why women are better drivers than men :D

Re:Driving Performance

[mark-t]

it's an issue because humans cannot multitask...

Wholly untrue. Or do you think most humans are incapable of even walking and chewing at the same time?

Re:Driving Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

That must explain why they're always looking in the rear view mirror and adjusting their makeup while driving.

Re:Driving Performance

[Sponge Bath]

...humans cannot multitask

They can, up to the point they bite on the gristle in the quarter pounder (royale with cheese) and decide the fries taste like they were fried in pus freshly squeezed from a pimple. At that point there is no alternative to texting your friends about your sorry fate and dying in a fiery explosion.

Re:Driving Performance

[Sique]

Actually, women don't perform any better than men at multitasking. Within both sexes, about 2-5% can really multitask, and everyone else basicly sucks at it. It's just that somehow upbringing and social roles allow women to still try multitasking and be content with the less-than-average productivity and quality.

Re:Driving Performance

[WillAffleckUW]

Actually, women don't perform any better than men at multitasking. Within both sexes, about 2-5% can really multitask, and everyone else basicly sucks at it. It's just that somehow upbringing and social roles allow women to still try multitasking and be content with the less-than-average productivity and quality.

I think the commenter is confusing the correct sentence: Women have more lifetime experience in multitasking with multiple conflicting voice inputs

With the incorrect sentence: Women can multitask safely.

Multitasking doesn't work. Women are just better at handling it, due to constant lifelong experience. But it does impact their driving skills.

Re:Driving Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

No, woman are better drivers statistically because they CAUSE accidents by being bad drivers. They just never stop and admire the effects of their ignorance of real driving environments.

Re:Driving Performance

[dadelbunts]

Thats why women are statistically in more accidents per mile driven vs men. If you want to try to speak about scientific points of view please use the correct data sets.

Re:Driving Performance

[The Second Horseman]

People's perceptions of how good they are at mental activities generally rely on complete ignorance about how the brain actually works. And they nearly always overestimate their own abilities.

For example, the fact that small changes in physical sensation can alter how you react to a stranger.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/heart-warming-news-on-coffee/?ei=5070&emc=eta1

And then there's the MRI scans showing that decisions are largely made before we're aware of them:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

Re:Driving Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

you are being pedantic, when talking about multi tasking it is implied to mean mental multi tasking, yes we can breath, chew, hear, hell I even manage to keep my heart beating most of the time too. That does not imply that I can mentally multi task two seperate mentally demanding tasks at the same time to an adequate efficiency that one or both of those tasks are not suffering because of it and greater than 95% of the population are in the same boat. when driving you are basically in control of a 1-2 ton ballistic missile, your attention whereever possible should be on ensuring that missile doesn't kill you or any around you.

Re:Driving Performance

[mark-t]

I explicitly chose examples of walking and chewing because neither of those tasks are autonomous, as breathing and your heartbeat are, which you mentioned... I did not.

They are, however, significant in that these are not mentally demanding activities, and neither really distracts you from doing other things at the same time.

Point being that human beings *CAN* multitask, particularly when at least one of the things that they are multitasking does not actually require a significant amount of attention to perform dutifully. Heck, the task of driving itself requires multitasking, even when you're not doing anything but driving in that it requires being aware of the speed you are traveling, being aware of any dangers on the road and of other traffic, as well as at least approximate knowledge of an intended route that one will take in the future.

However...simply talking to someone ordinarily, whether they are with you or on the phone, does not really require a significant amount of concentration, and so should not distract a competent driver who would probably mentally disengage from a conversation without notice or warning to the person on the other end, whenever the conversation was prohibitively distracting anyways and it would take no more time to do this than it would take to ordinarily increase the attention you would be paying to driving under nominal conditions to a situation now requiring further attention than if you had been completely alone and in silence unless you were already paying more attention to the road for some reason or another (but human beings cannot ordinarily maintain elevated levels of concentration for long periods, which is why driving in very congested traffic is so much more mentally exhausting than driving for much longer periods at a relatively constant speed, and with smooth traffic flow).

Re:Driving Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 180 degree peripheral vision. Is this uncommon?

Re:Driving Performance

[AK Marc]

Driving is a single task. The task is putting the car where you want it to be (secondary is deciding where you want it to be). Single task (maybe two). The problem is the people that don't ever get the skill to condense driving down to a single task. I've found that the single-taskers "see" the area around them like a top-down radar view. The people that see 1000 individual cars around them are the ones that treat driving like 1000 simultaneous little tasks.

Re:Driving Performance

[AK Marc]

However...simply talking to someone ordinarily, whether they are with you or on the phone, does not really require a significant amount of concentration,

Walking and chewing gum are nearly autonomous. Gum chewing is a reflex. Like breathing, you can control it, but, like breathing, you do it even if you don't think about it. Walking is the same. You may think about where you are going, but unless you are walking on coals, you don't think about where you are stepping. Even on a regular street with pits and holes, your peripheral vision and walking steps work without conscious thought, even when avoiding obstacles. So you picked two of the most autonomous not-technically-autonomous tasks. If you want to watch someone fail multitasking, ask them to have the most basic conversation while typing (or writing) a transcription of something else simple. The number of errors will increase greatly, for both tasks.

(but human beings cannot ordinarily maintain elevated levels of concentration for long periods, which is why driving in very congested traffic is so much more mentally exhausting than driving for much longer periods at a relatively constant speed, and with smooth traffic flow)

But humans can process complex driving into a simpler activity. A novice driver driving NASCAR would forget to drive properly (missing shifts, brake points and such), but a champion driver would be able to beat the novice driver while reciting Shakespeare. Someone with good driving skills can handle hours of congestion without elevated concentration. Driving isn't that hard, even in heavy congestion. But when holding a simple conversation when typing screws up your typing, how can you think that it wouldn't affect your driving?

Re:Driving Performance

[Sique]

The second one is not so astonishing. Imagine a collective decision like a vote. In most cases, the outcome can already be predicted before it is formalized, even though every voter is free in his individual vote at the voting booth. So I would expect the brain with its multiple functional units which contribute to a decision also can be predicted before the actual decision is finalized.

Re:Driving Performance

[mark-t]

Walking and chewing gum are nearly autonomous.

Not really, but you yourself explicitly indicate why:

But humans can process complex driving into a simpler activity.

Indeed... which is the reason why it's entirely possible to drive and talk to somebody else at the same time, even if that person is not physically there, without any concentration degradation on the former.

Suggesting that it's somehow outside of human achievement just because some people can't seem to manage it is an inaccurate over generalization.

Re:Driving Performance

[CanHasDIY]

it's an issue because humans cannot multitask...

Wholly untrue.
Or do you think most humans are incapable of even walking and chewing at the same time?

You misunderstand the meaning of the term, 'multitasking.' it has little to do with physical actions, and everything to do with ability to focus on a task.

I.e., when driving you must work the pedals with your feet and simultaneously turn the wheel with your hands; however, it is next to impossible to focus on the task of driving while simultaneously focusing on some other task, such as talking on a phone or eating.

There's plenty of science to back my assertion; Google the term, "Multitasking myth" (sans quotes)

Re:Driving Performance

[mark-t]

My point is that simple activities like talking to somebody else does not, generally speaking, require any large amounts of concentration, and isn't likely to interfere with any other activity, even driving, since such a conversation would be considered a "background task", to use the words of the author of a book mentioned in the first article that your recommended google search turned up. Conversing still requires some conscious thought, but by virtue of being able to be a "background task", does not actually distract a person from doing something that does not otherwise require their full and completely undivided and focused attention. Any additional levels of cognitive distraction which occur due to talking on a cell phone over talking to somebody else who is in the car with you are a result of the person failing to properly delegate such a conversation to its correct priority with respect to the task that they should be focused on, which is driving.

Holding a cell phone, or for that matter, holding any object, such as a food or a cup of coffee, or otherwise manipulating with your hands any gadgets or controls that are not actually on the steering wheel itself is problematic while driving because you must physically release what you are touching in order to grab the wheel in the event that an unexpected but immediate need to have more control over the vehicle arises, and that *physical* response takes some real amount of time. However, merely mentally disengaging from a conversation as required by any unexpected driving events which require undistracted attention does not generally involve any physical movement that interferes with driving (unless you are somehow controlling the car with your jaw or mouth), and so does not take any additional time, so for a person who does not find talking or listening to somebody to be any kind of cognitive distraction, talking on a hands-free cell phone should not increase a person's reaction time any more than otherwise talking with somebody who is physically in the car with the driver would.

Re:Driving Performance

[AK Marc]

Not really, but you yourself explicitly indicate why:

Explicitly, humans have a chew reflex. Chewing gum is like breathing. You do it even if you don't think about it, and you can do it however you like if you feel like it. Breathing is autonomous, chewing gum isn't autonomous, but it is unconsciously reflexive (like hitting a knee with a mallet gets the kick reflex isn't conscious).

Indeed... which is the reason why it's entirely possible to drive and talk to somebody else at the same time, even if that person is not physically there, without any concentration degradation on the former. Suggesting that it's somehow outside of human achievement just because some people can't seem to manage it is an inaccurate over generalization.

You are wrong. That it's "possible" doesn't mean it's safe or common. You are making vast illogical leaps to prove a point that is unsubstantiated (and provably false, in practice).

Yes, it's theoretically possible that someone could talk and drive safely. But, in practice, the average drivers can't. Given that people are horrible at evaluating their own skills, leaving it up to them to decide if they are one of the few "safe" ones is illogical and dangerous. So, for the safety of all, banning drunk driving is a good thing, even though I know more than one alcoholic who insists they are better drivers when they've had a few.

Re:Driving Performance

[mark-t]

Many "reflexes" that adults have are actually learned behaviors that people have been doing for such a long time that no significant amount of conscious attention needs to be delegated to them. Talking is an example of such a task, and does not generally impede someone from doing something that requires concentration unless the task requires the utmost, absolute, and completely undivided attention... which would not normally be the case while driving for an experienced driver (who has already learned many of the very complex tasks involved in driving, and their brain has created a mechanism by which a practiced person can practice it without expending as much effort on concentration as was required when they were learning).

Re:Driving Performance

[AK Marc]

Talking requires no thought, but the thought behind the talking requires thought. Even if it takes zero thought to walk, it takes some thought to decide whether to go get milk before dinner or after, or whether you'll be going down the dry goods isle for canned milk or dairy for fresh. So walking takes no thought, but you don't walk without having a thought.

Re:Driving Performance

[mark-t]

You overestimate the amount of thought required to put into having a verbal conversation. Unless you are doing something that actually requires all of your undivided attention (in which case you wouldn't be able to talk to anyone else in the car with you anways, so the notion that cell phone calls may be somehow more distracting than people in the car is a moot point), you should probably be able to verbally engage somebody in casual conversation without any noticeable distraction from what you might otherwise be focused on.

Re:Driving Performance

[AK Marc]

I think you overestimate people's ability to talk without thinking.

(in which case you wouldn't be able to talk to anyone else in the car with you anways, so the notion that cell phone calls may be somehow more distracting than people in the car is a moot point

Passengers pay attention to traffic. If you are talking to a passenger and they see something untoward, they'll point it out. There's an inherent difference between a conversation with someone in the car and someone out of it.

Re:Driving Performance

[mark-t]

Passengers pay attention to traffic.

Some do, yes. That's hardly universal.

Re:Driving Performance

[AK Marc]

What's "universal" have to do with it? You are saying that if seatbelts save tens of thousands of lives a year, they should not be required because 0.0001% of the time, they cause a problem with someone who drove in a lake or otherwise needs to vacate the car quickly. If you aren't advocating the abolishment of seatbelts, then you agree with me, but in a most disagreeable manner.

Co-inventor? WTF?

[stanlyb]

If you did invent 50% of the app, you could claim the "co-invent" title, but if it is about 0.0000000....1%, are you a thief or "co"-inventor?

Re:Co-inventor? WTF?

[JasterBobaMereel]

Siri is a spin-out from the SRI International Artificial Intelligence Center, and is an offshoot of the DARPA-funded CALO project

Your government paid for Siri .... why is Apple able to monoplise it ?

Wasted, totally wasted, or blotto

[WillAffleckUW]

The comparison should really be based on how drivers actually behave while texting or using hands-free Siri.

My sister thinks she's safe when she drives hands-free with Bluetooth enabled voice cell in her Prius.

But she weaves and drifts while driving.

If she were texting, it would be bad.

It's the difference between being Wasted (hands-free Siri, due to mental distraction, and occassional looking at display), Totally wasted (normal cell phone while driving), and Blotto (texting while driving).

You're still a menace to society, and we'd be better off if you had only downed two shots of vodka instead.

Re:Wasted, totally wasted, or blotto

[wonkey_monkey]

But she weaves and drifts while driving. If she were texting, it would be bad.

As opposed to the weaving and drifting?!

More astroturfing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given those company's habits of telling their own employees to pop up on message boards and espouse the services, saying how great they are for hands-free use but carefully avoiding saying the words "while driving" and trying to drive down any negative reviews that popped up, and their colorfully fictional growth charts, is it any wonder they'd pretend they're not dangerous on the road?

Real world use?

[fafaforza]

Sure, ideally you'd never look at the screen. But are we sure most people wouldn't proofread messages and manually press send once happy? Maybe the study looked at what most people would consider voice-to-text, and how this form of VTT would affect driving.

Consider pilots and radios

[SplashMyBandit]

Pilots are able to do many tasks while talking on the radio to many other aircraft and ground stations. I'm talking about even private pilots in 'bug smasher' aircraft - just just commercial pilots and military aviators.

As long as you are hands free and looking at the road I personally think that the burden of talking on a 'hands free' phone setup is no worse than talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. If ordinary folks can manage to fly aircraft and listen and talk (and mostly not crash) then prohibiting people talking (hands free) while driving seems like overcaution and resistance to change.

I'm sure there at the low end of the skill spectrum (those easily task saturated, eg. my mother :) ) are those that can't talk and drive, but they should be banned from having radio and passengers too - yet doing so seems ridiculous, yes? the restrictions on hands-free calls also seem ridiculous when seen in the same light, yes?

Re:Consider pilots and radios

[YrWrstNtmr]

Pilots and radios are completely different.

1, it is task oriented. You are not gabbing about grocery lists, or where Ralph in accounting left the Finster file.
2. It is a half-duplex conversation. Your brain is not engaged in listening for the other person to say something, until you release the mic button.

Re:Consider pilots and radios

[AK Marc]

The radio is task specific. You don't call Mom to tell her that the guy in the Red Civic next to you looks to be drifting to the right side of his land and you suspect he may be considering an unsafe lane change into you. Nor do you tell her that you are going to be parallel parking on the northbound side of the road. But pilots only speak on the radio about what they are doing at that moment. Also, airplanes are stable. You can let go of the controls for 10 seconds at a time without incident, assuming you aren't in the middle of an unusually tight turn, or landing.

As long as you are hands free and looking at the road I personally think that the burden of talking on a 'hands free' phone setup is no worse than talking to a passenger or listening to the radio.

What's on the radio? I know a number of people that get quite unsafely worked up from talk radio. And music on the radio takes zero effort to listen to. Most of the time the listener has heard it before, and can ignore it without losing any information. That can't be done with a phone call.

but they should be banned from having radio and passengers too

More practically, they should be banned from having a license. But that's considered political suicide, so everyone pretends everyone is capable of being a safe driver.

Re:Consider pilots and radios

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure that's why all those pilots you talk about had to invent a word for too much input..it's called 'brain-fire'. Look it up.

Re:Consider pilots and radios

[Anonymous Coward]

As a trained pilot I can tell you that making radio communications when you're not thoroughly familiar with FAA phraseology can be quite distracting especially when controlling a small helicopter. I remember looking at and simply not seeing the helicopter passing right in-front of me as I talked on the radio until my instructor pulled back on the cyclic. I was looking right at where the crossing helicopter was coming from and knowing that helicopter traffic was likely to be along that route, but in reality I might was well have been fully blind at that moment, I think I more perceived just enough information to keep the aircraft attitude aka the horizon. Now it wasn't more then a possible near miss had I not seen the crossing traffic. Actually During IFR training I came even closer to a airplane flying low and violating Class D airspace. But obviously that wasn't my fault. Anyway the First incident taught me that 1. Air traffic is hard too see against the urban landscape. 2. Talking and Listen can cause you not to see what's right in-front of you.

Re:Consider pilots and radios

[JasterBobaMereel]

Pilots of large complex aircraft have co-pilots - one is concentrating all the time ..

Small Aircraft are simple and the radio is hand-free and they crash quite often (they are the only type of aircraft considered to be more dangerous than driving)

Re:Consider pilots and radios

[greenlead]

It's all about priorities: AVIATE, Navigate, Communicate.

Pilots and others with some level of emergency services / high stress career training know how to prioritize.

We need to increase standards to receive driver's licenses in America, and drill Aviate, Navigate, Communicate into their heads, and actually expose them to high-stress driving.

Speech-to-Text at its current level of development will absolutely make matters WORSE. Texting while driving makes drivers more stressed because of frustration: what's in my mind is not appearing on the screen and that means I have to try two or more times to get the message to show up correctly. This greatly increases my level of stress while driving, which is why I don't do it.

When I'm driving, if I feel like I am becoming stressed, I remove all distractions: the radio is turned off, the girlfriend has learned to be quiet, and I concentrate on the road. I wish everyone would behave this way.

Just pay attention already.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would appear speaking into Siri or other applications that do speech to text hasn't been studied enough to make a final decision, but I think it's going to end up OK. This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.

The only valid study would evaluate the software being used as it is typically used, regardless of the manufacturers intent.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[Anonymous Coward]

'The study seems to have misunderstood how Siri was designed to be used,' Cheyer says.

You're holding it wrong

Re:Just pay attention already.

[rs1n]

It would appear speaking into Siri or other applications that do speech to text hasn't been studied enough to make a final decision, but I think it's going to end up OK. This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.

The only valid study would evaluate the software being used as it is typically used, regardless of the manufacturers intent.

Well said.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[fnj]

The only valid study would evaluate the software being used as it is typically used, regardless of the manufacturers intent.

No, that is complete bullshit. The only test whose results are of any interest at all would be a test which evaluates using the function PROPERLY, not in any onviouslly highly dangerous wrong manner. You could test the safety of some bird brain trying to drive his cars with his knees while woking on a rubik's cube, too, but that would be STUPID.

Texting while driving by typing manually and/or using a screen to verify results is obviously INHERENTLY highly dangerous. On the other hand, using voice exclusively to do the job is no different than talking to somebody inside the car or hands-free talking to a voice on a phone.

Now, the matter of getting some nut behind the wheel to use the proper and safe function in a proper and safe manner is another matter altogether. You could try to remove all driving distractions one by one, by taking out the builtin radio, outlawing the use of any radios or navigation devices or phones by the driver, putting soundproof walls between the driver and all occupants, trying to find some scientific method to suppress sexual thoughts when the driver sees someone attractive outside, or someone in the passenger seat is adjusting their bra, etc, etc - endlessly. I personally favor education instead. I know showing people how to live safely and relying on them to take safety seriously doesn't appeal to all mindsets.

I LIKE your subject line. I wish your message reflected it.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[SkimTony]

When using a study such as this, it's important to state the constraints of the study when explaining your conclusion. The headlines don't read "most commonly used mode of Siri/Vlingo not better than texting while driving." They read "Using Siri/Vlingo no better than texting while driving." If they didn't test the version of Siri designed to be used while driving, then this is an inappropriate conclusion; they didn't test Siri, they only tested a particular configuration (just like secure computing certifications only apply to the configuration tested, and can't be generalized to an entire platform).

I would assert that a more useful study would be to test the recommended modes, because the $64,000 question is whether there exists a mode of operation that is better than plain texting. If so, we can use that data to encourage people to stop using things the most common way, and start doing things in a slightly safer way. Is using Siri to text while driving a good idea? Probably not. Is it a less dangerous idea than looking away from the road to stare at a screen? That's the answer that would be useful, and it's not the answer this study was trying to find.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[BrokenHalo]

You could test the safety of some bird brain trying to drive his cars with his knees while woking on a rubik's cube, too, but that would be STUPID.

True, but entertaining if you aren't in his path. I once saw a guy playing a trumpet while driving with his knees. And I'll never forget the chick in the open-top sports car weaving across a four-lane highway to the rhythm of Bob Marley's "Buffalo Soldiers" while applying makeup using her car mirror.

It's easy for Apple to say "you're doing it wrong" by manually proofreading whatever Siri thinks you've said. But sometimes it's bad enough to deal with to deal with the kind of idiocies that text-mode autocorrecters come up with. The risk of a voice-recognition app interpreting "Pick up Mike Hunt" as "Dick up my cunt" is just too high.

Either way, it can be pretty scary when someone is driving right at you, and you can see that he isn't paying attention. IMO, texting is far worse even than yakking on the phone, even without hands-free. You can always drop the phone in an emergency, but if your eyes are on the screen, chances are you'll never know there was an emergency.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[zyzko]

It is not complete bullshit. If the software allows you to hand-correct the texts you dictate and vast majority of people do so while driving - that is then how the software is used. In software projects (at least in good ones) there is a testing period where the actual use is monitored, and people can be very creative in using the software in ways the designer did not mean to.

The only question is - what to do about it. In case of an business software used inefficiently the answer is often quite easy - make study why users are not using the features the way designers intended and make them better (better UI, better access to new features, training, etc.) - in the case of Siri and texting - a tougher one. Maybe the only way is to make the speech-to-text so good so you don't have to mind ending up on damnyouautocorrect or your business contact thinking that you are drunk.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[getmerexkramer]

Sorry but if the point of the study is to find out whether using Siri is dangerous, then the test should reflect typical usage. No one's interested in a study that shows whether or not Siri was designed to be dangerous, only whether it is. Your example is stupid because virtually no one drives a car with their knees, if many drove in this manner it would be a perfectly valid thing to test.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[gd2shoe]

I think this was a politically driven study. They weren't after a better texting solution... they just wanted to ban phones in cars. At this rate (in CA) it will be illegal to possess a phone battery or charger in a moving vehicle. They just hate phones in cars. They're convinced that phones are killing millions of people every year, and don't you dare tell them that haven't a clue how statistics work. (Any batch of numbers, inappropriately crunched, will produce "statistics"... just not useful ones.

And the media? Accurate reporting of news? Avoiding misleading sensationalist headlines? Uh huh. Not going to happen. They're in a desperate race to the bottom. Shout the loudest, speak the simplest, try to keep your doors open.

I'm sure the study had a reasonable title. They could afford to. The media was going to misreport it for them regardless.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[KGIII]

while woking on a rubik's cube

You have a stove in your car??? Also, don't cook plastic. Even cooked it isn't meant to be eaten usually.

Wok this way, talk this way...

Re:Just pay attention already.

[AmiMoJo]

You should test the way people actually use the function. Feel free to try to change behaviour as well, but we need to know what the risk of the current use case is.

Even if used properly Siri requires more attention than talking to someone hands-free. You will want to check what Siri has written because he often makes mistakes when taking dictation. He can read it back to you but does so at an even pace and doesn't pause if your attention is required elsewhere, and on top of that you have to actually be thinking about what was written to check it for errors. It's still far better than looking at the screen, but not the same as talking hands-free or to a passenger.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[Anonymous Coward]

'The study seems to have misunderstood how Siri was designed to be used,' Cheyer says.

You're holding it wrong

researchers asked subjects to drive a closed course while they held an iPhone or Android phone in one hand

In the UK and Ireland both hands are meant to be on the steering wheel so they would be holding it wrong. Siri and Vlingo should not be used while driving.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[Holi]

All I get from your rant is selfishness.
You want to do whatever the hell you want and damn the consequences. If you can't see that texting and driving (especially with a touchscreen phone) is a major distraction, you are either incredibly stupid or flat out lying.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could test the safety of some bird brain trying to drive his cars with his knees while woking on a rubik's cube, too, but that would be STUPID.

It would be stupid because nobody advocates driving with ones knees, and the manufacturer of rubik's cube has never claimed that it is safe to use while driving, even if used properly.

Obviously, an idiot behind the wheel is a hazard, no matter what they are doing. The benchmark should be reasonable expectations, of the consumer, and of the manufacturer. If it is reasonable to expect that a product can or will be used in a certain way, and that expected behavior poses a hazard, that hazard should be recognized and addressed. Simply waving it away as "non-recommended use" or pointing out manufacturer admonitions, especially those that are demonstratively ineffective, is not good enough.

Mobile electronics are currently an attractive nuisance to drivers and a menace to safety on the roads. This is a problem that is observable, and IMO the intelligent response to a problem is to seek a solution.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy for Apple to say "you're doing it wrong" by manually proofreading whatever Siri thinks you've said. But sometimes it's bad enough to deal with to deal with the kind of idiocies that text-mode autocorrecters come up with. The risk of a voice-recognition app interpreting "Pick up Mike Hunt" as "Dick up my cunt" is just too high.

And that's why Siri not only has a hands free option, but also a voice feedback option, that tells you want it thinks you said. And if Siri would understand your "No, no, don't send that" as "Send", nobody understands a word you are saying anyway.

Re:Just pay attention already.

[gd2shoe]

What they did in the study was clearly very dangerous. Anyone that does that on actual roads ought to be arrested and have their licence revoked.

I mean that.

Now try to see past what you originally thought I said. There is a jihad against phones in cars... in any way, shape, or form. The disinformation campaign is in full swing. This study was either commissioned for this holy war, or was co-opted by it.

The bloody ignorance

[Fuzzums]

If you handle a gun, your priority is safety. Your safety and that of others. That is your first priority and the own priority.
Traffic is dangerous too, so it's the same there.
If your bloody text messages are so important that it can't wait 10 minutes, you better be so bloody important that you can afford a driver.
Of not, your focus on the traffic.

Re:The bloody ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Of not, your focus on the traffic.

derp.

Re:The bloody ignorance

[wonkey_monkey]

If you handle a gun, your priority is safety. Your safety and that of others. That is your first priority and the [only] priority.

If that was really true, we wouldn't have cars or guns (or adventure playgrounds). Everything's a compromise, really. Not that taking your eyes off the road to check your phone isn't one of the stupidest things you can do while in charge of a car.

Re:The bloody ignorance

[mjwx]

If you handle a gun, your priority is safety. Your safety and that of others. That is your first priority and the own priority. Traffic is dangerous too, so it's the same there.

This, a thousand times this.

The majority of firearm deaths would to correlate with the majority of automotive deaths. Someone wasn't being safe, they were either drunk (I'd be very surprised if drink shooting wasn't a major cause of firearm injuries), reckless or careless.

The sad part is, most people dont know when they are being reckless or careless with their cars. In Australia when you're reckless or careless with a firearm they take them off you, but not with cars.

I've commented before that I track my car on a regular basis. I see so many weekend warriors who think they can race because they do 10 over in traffic or have done 200 KPH in a straight line on some isolated bit of highway ONCE. I'm not exaggerating when I say 9 out of 10 of them lose control and spin into the sand on the first bend (a hairpin on my local track, so that doesn't help). Few drivers actually know the limits of their own abilities, let alone their cars so after the "tow of shame" (the sand is meant to bog the car, so someone else has to get you out of it) a lot of the weekend warriors are never seen again, those that come back have learned some humility.

Re:The bloody ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbjSWDwJILs

Published on Apr 27, 2012

More and more traffic accidents are due to texting. If we want to reduce the 1.2 million traffic victims worldwide each year, we have to act. How do you convince youngsters not to text while driving? Prove them it is a very bad idea: oblige them to text while driving! See how Belgian learner drivers reacted when they were told they had to pass the mobile phone test in order to get their driver's license.

Re:The bloody ignorance

[JasterBobaMereel]

In the USA you are twice as likely to be killed by being in a traffic accident than by being shot ...

Your car is a far more dangerous weapon than a gun ...

too bad studies have proven otherwise

[SuperBanana]

Merely having a conversation with someone impacts your driving; passengers tend to be aware of circumstances like intersections, onramps, cyclists, etc - but people on the other end of your call can't be. It's why Ray Lahood and NHTSA wanted cell phone calls by drivers to end, period. Then there's the issue of control of the car; regardless of whether or not you're "eyes free", if you're holding something in you hand, you're not able to control your vehicle as well as you can with two hands on the wheel. I attended a driving handling clinic (which was insanely fun) where they had you do a slalom course normally, and then do it holding a water bottle to the side of your head; the results speak for themselves.

Re:too bad studies have proven otherwise

[mark-t]

Under nominal and expected driving conditions, where speed is relatively constant, and one is not performing any kind of maneuver which may involve negotiating with unpredictable traffic flow, the task of driving, at least by an experienced driver, does not require any significant amount of concentration, and so engaging in conversation would not be so distracting as to endanger anyone.

If you can walk in a straight line and chew food at the same time, and if you are already otherwise a competent driver, then at least under ideal conditions, you can probably also drive and talk to somebody on a hands-free cell at the same time as well.

Now I'm aware that not every situation is deal... but a driver who's actually otherwise competent should be able to recognize those situations the instant that they arise, and wouldn't try to talk to somebody else during such moments anyways.

Re:too bad studies have proven otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can walk in a straight line and chew food at the same time, and if you are already otherwise a competent driver, then at least under ideal conditions, you can probably also drive and talk to somebody on a hands-free cell at the same time as well.

I bet you couldn't recall all the times in your life when you stumbled or inadvertently bumped into something while walking in a straight line, even without chewing food at the same time.

Unpredictable things, are by nature, unpredictable. If you concede that unpredictable situations require an undistracted driver, the responsible driver must never be needlessly distracted. "Probably" is a fine standard when the worst possible outcome is stubbing your toe. It doesn't cut it when engaging in a completely frivolous activity may result in the deaths of others.

Re:too bad studies have proven otherwise

[fish waffle]

Under nominal and expected driving conditions...

And that's where everything goes wrong. You know, under "normal and expected conditions" there isn't any dogshit on the sidewalk, but guess what?

I'm aware that not every situation is deal... but a driver who's actually otherwise competent should be able to recognize those situations the instant that they arise..

Unless of course they're busy with whatever else they do under "normal and expected conditions." Switching attention takes time---there's a reason why sprinters are not chatting on the phone right up until they hear the starting gun.

Re:too bad studies have proven otherwise

[characterZer0]

It is not that the other people in the car are paying attention, it is that the sound quality is so much worse from your phone that your brain has to devote much more attention to parsing language.

Re:too bad studies have proven otherwise

[mark-t]

I bet you couldn't recall all the times in your life when you stumbled or inadvertently bumped into something while walking in a straight line

No... but then that's because I'm physically extremely clumsy.

I was regularly walking right head on into walls until I was about 7.

Re:too bad studies have proven otherwise

[mark-t]

Such situations are generally far more anticipatable by an experienced driver than you give them credit for... In the relatively few instances where they are not, and I'm speaking from personal experience here, not happening to be using a cell phone at the time doesn't tend to make such an imminent situation more preventable.

Disengaging from a conversation to do something else that you were not otherwise planning to do should take no more time than doing what you were going to do anyways... you just stop talking or listening.

Re:too bad studies have proven otherwise

[godrik]

Is there a study that backs this assertion up?

Flyingg != Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots are able to do many tasks while talking on the radio to many other aircraft and ground stations. I'm talking about even private pilots in 'bug smasher' aircraft - just just commercial pilots and military aviators.

There is no comparison between the obstacles that the typical pilot must navigate and the obstacles that the typical automobile driver must navigate.

. . . prohibiting people talking (hands free) while driving seems like overcaution and resistance to change.

Its not a resistance to change. It is a reaction to observed experience and emerging knowledge.

That b***ch!

[Anonymous Coward]

That b***ch! Women are always arguing about something; Siri's no different...

But get on her bad side, and it's off a cliff you go! Paper maps are the best,
plus they don't sas you, either.

Screw you

[YrWrstNtmr]

I don't care how Siri was 'designed to be used'. I care abut how it actually works in practice.
Do people actually look at the screen? Yes.
Is it stable enough and good enough that people actually trust it to not screw up the text? No.

I may be a biased commentator, but I am currently on the hunt for a replacement vehicle specifically because of a texting driver. Luckily, I am still vertical and breathing.

Re:Screw you

[flimflammer]

While I was one of the first to criticize the "You're holding it wrong" response from Apple, in this situation, he does hold some validity. Sure, if you are using the hands-on mode, it is just as dangerous, but if there are driving oriented controls, it should at least be mentioned in the study that they exist but were explicitly disregarded. Who knows if those in the study would have used that mode if they weren't explicitly told how to use the device in the study. I have no idea how Siri works or what its UI is like. If there isn't some easily visible item somewhere to activate the car mode then that is a problem on their end that needs correcting.

In the end, I suppose this means that they need to push the car mode or whatever they're calling it more than they have been to get people in the habit of using it instead of the hands-on mode.

Re:Screw you

[ElementOfDestruction]

Maybe you should have put the phone down and you wouldn't have gotten in a terrible accident. You're putting everybody at risk.

two solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Don't use your cell phone when driving (this tends to be hard for most people).

2) Cars must drive themselves.

In the modern era it seems that people are incapable of driving themselves.

Re:Distraction. Or freeway?

[WillAffleckUW]

Um, what's a freeway?

I live in Seattle and I rarely drive on I-5, and even then just for one stop or two.

Where we're going we don't need freeways.

It's illegal to drive without being conscious of road conditions.

As in pull over, turn off ignition, stop driving illegal.

Test how it is used, debug code, not comments

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Always test it as it is being used by the users. Not the way it is designed to be used by the designers. It does not matter what the designer thinks how it should be used. Testing it according to the design manual is like debugging software by stepping through the comments instead of looking at code.

Whistling and Pissing At The Same Time

[Greyfox]

As Hagbard Celine was wont to say, "if you whistle while you're pissing, you have two minds where one is quite sufficient. If you have two minds, you are at war with yourself. If you are at war with yourself, it is easy for an external force to defeat you. This is why Mong-Tse wrote, 'A man must destroy himself before others can destroy him.'"

she?

[csumpi]

She? Really? That's some revolutionary magical ridiculousness.

Re:she?

[DMUTPeregrine]

Ships have been "she" for hundreds of years. Siri has a female voice, so people consider it a female AI.

Re:she?

[csumpi]

A ship, yes. But not a silly app on a phone.

So the elephant in the room...

[Loopy]

...is that voice-to-text software is so remarkably unreliable that nobody uses it without proofreading the output before sending. I think most people could have told you this without an official study.

And just for the obtuse, it isn't that it completely misunderstands everything you say, it's that when you're sending texts, the things it tends to fail to translate properly tend to be things that get your text posted to one of those autocorrect-joke sites. Or get you in trouble with the wife/husband/parents/boss.

Re:So the elephant in the room...

[Anonymous Coward]

The texts on those auto-correct sites are essentially always fiction.

He's a jerk.

[MarkvW]

I ride my bike. The more car drivers' heads are up, the safer I am. The heck with jerks trying to tout their products at the expense of public safety.

I wasn't even aware there was an eyes free mode

[Paul Carver]

I have an iPhone 4S but I long ago concluded that Siri is useless. It doesn't understand conversational speech and requires pressing and holding the button every time you want it to do anything. Its speech recognition only gets about 50-60% of words correct. I tried dictating a text in the car about twice before deciding it was entirely reckless and dangerous.

Every example I've ever heard of using Siri has been stupid pointless stuff I would never do anyway. It would be nice if it had an AI capable of taking dictation accurately and understanding descriptive editing but as far as I can tell it is hopelessly inaccurate and not even remotely AI.

Great! If most drivers have those options availabl

[NoLoSo]

How many drivers that have such hands-free voice-only enabled devices own cars that have all options installed (and correctly configured by the user per all involved manufacturers) that would allow for the device to be used in the "intended mode"? Not (by far!) the majority of the driving-plus-device-using population, I suspect. Supposing that "not the majority" is indeed the case: Even if the study had been done as Siri creator states it should have been done, the results would have very little applicability for the majority of such drivers. Meanwhile,

Just don't use the phone at all

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive a really LOUD van so I can't hear the ringtone at all, let alone have a intelligible conversation with someone. And texting, wtf? I pity those people who are such slaves to their phones. It is possible to just call people back, you know, when you're done driving.

Of course humans can multitask. It's just not real pre-emptive multitasking (there is no reliable hardware timer / interrupt), more like basic co-operative multitasking with only a few hardware interrupts (mostly senses triggered (pain, sound, vision), so in a car, they come too late to act to avoid them). If one of your mental processes doesn't yield fast enough, the other process might miss a polling event, and there you go, I have not seen him coming.

Siri isn't totally hands-free

[flarb936]

Yeah but the problem is half the time Siri requires you to tap the screen. Ask for directions, and it will ask you to chose from a list of locations by tapping on it. It also drives me nuts how it won't read me the screen contents sometimes--especially when doing simple data lookups form search engines, it should know to read the results (like what the weather is etc.) if you've got a BlueTooth headset connected (and maybe travelling fast!)...since your'e obviously driving.

Nanny Politics

[gd2shoe]

They're doing it right... [L]etting Texas A&M Transportation Institute do a study... about texting in the driving environment produced findings they wanted.

Removing the (well deserved) Obama bashing out of your post, and you beat me to the punch. There's a real drive in certain political circles right now to protect us from something that they perceive is dangerous (cell phones anywhere near a car). Any study that will "prove" their point is worth funding.

The fact of the matter is, talking on a cell phone (even without hands free) is by far the least dangerous "distracted driving" activity that happens everywhere, all the time. For instance, eating behind the wheel is legitimately dangerous... but it has nothing to do with cell phones, it must be alright! Changing the station/CD/song in your car? Messing with the AC? Shaving? Messing with the GPS??? How about talking to someone in the backseat?!? That's more dangerous than talking on a cell phone!

There is no logic to these people, only rotten/mishandled statistics. But we have to "protect people" from themselves through legislation. Otherwise how are they ever to survive?...

Re:Nanny Politics

[flyneye]

Bashing? The man is responsible for his own actions, I merely made the comparison. Obama bashes his own character around quite well on his own, to speak of it is merely to report it. Don't like it? Tell him , not me. I guess he's not the man he sold you on, during the campaign, go figure. Who'da guessed?

Re:Nanny Politics

[pedestrian crossing]

For instance, eating behind the wheel is legitimately dangerous... but it has nothing to do with cell phones, it must be alright! Changing the station/CD/song in your car? Messing with the AC? Shaving? Messing with the GPS??? How about talking to someone in the backseat?!? That's more dangerous than talking on a cell phone!

[Citation Needed]

Re:Nanny Politics

[tehcyder]

There's a real drive in certain political circles right now to protect us from something that they perceive is dangerous

Those evil fucking government bastards. I should be free to kill myself and anyone slow enough not to get out of my way. Yee hah!

Re:Nanny Politics

[gd2shoe]

Hey, hey. I already said it was well deserved. Save the vitriol for the next Clinton election campaign.

The reason why so many people did not understand your post is because you stuck a long non-sequitur in the middle of your second sentence. Stay focused on your point, and people are more likely to understand you.

Try to understand what other people have actually written and they're more likely to want to communicate with you.

Re:Nanny Politics

[gd2shoe]

There is an abundance of bad statistics out to prove cell phones are more dangerous than they really are. They go out of their way to use bad logic and mix data that doesn't apply. And by and large, they get believed and repeated. But you asked for a citation about what I've posted...

Here's one.

Are their numbers inflated? I'm guessing that they are... but so are the cell phone statistics.

Re:Nanny Politics

[gd2shoe]

Strawman, and not a very good one.

Re:Nanny Politics

[pedestrian crossing]

That's not a real citation, it's an article in the New York Daily News (not exactly a scientific journal - not really even much of a newspaper) which doesn't link to the study they reference.

You make some pretty unambiguous statements listing several things are more dangerous than talking on a cell phone. Unless you are prepared to back them up with anything resembling scientific evidence, you need to STFU and get back under the bridge with the rest of the trolls.

I'm not making any claims other than the claim that you are talking out your ass.

Knees

[gd2shoe]

You've never seen someone drive with their knees? I think it's very bad behavior, but it happens all... the... time.

No, seriously. I'd guess more than half of under-thirty-year-olds have used their knees to drive at one point or another, with no hands free to take the wheel.

Re:Knees

[Quirkz]

I once drove for 40 miles on the Interstate in North Dakota using only my knees, just to see how far I could go without hands. It was a controlled experiment, though, and I had my hands free and ready to grab the wheel when necessary. Yes, I was under 30 at the time.

Re:Knees

[idontgno]

It's North Dakota. You could drive 30 random miles on any highway with no steering wheel and no brake pedal with no negative repercussions.

Northern tier highways are the reason people sometimes confuse "cruise control" with "autopilot".

please why does it matter

[johnwerneken]

There are so many things alleged drivers do besides drive..paint toenails, eat lunch, discipline kids/pets, drink beverages (the more dangerous of which seem to be the hot ones that can end up in senistive boldily places), look for toll change, talk to the other folks in the car, stare at the attractive person of the opposite/appropriate sex, etc. that I see no reason why we should worry about the various uses and missuses of telephones/tablets/smartphones/texting platforms. And besides, as long as we let PEOPLE drive without supervision, injuries we will have, regardless. Even airplanes being flown by computers and supervised by expert pilots crash. THIS IS JUST MORE BLUE SMOKE AND MIRRORS!

When people die, we feel motivated to make recurrence less likely, but when what we do won't do that, but only make it look like our leaders care, I say its a crock of male bovine solid waste.

Does Adam Cheyer Have Kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they old enough to drive?

You know truckers have been doing this for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

and they have TWICE as many gears to shift through.

Whats wrong with you guys that you cant handle a honda civic & a light conversation at the same time?

No its actually exactly the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the FAA approaches problems like this in a completely different manner than DOT.

Rather than writing up some new law so they can write you a ticket & take your money. They would rather educate you & make you safer.

The mantra they use for this is "Aviate, navigate, communicate"

And you do it in -that- order.

If you're in the middle of a tricky maneuver when ATC calls you... do your maneuver, get it completed, and -then- respond to ATC... if you need to ask them to repeat what they said, go ahead, they wont get upset, they'll understand, they know you're busy.

We could solve this whole distracted driving issue with a little bit of education. Pulling up to a tricky intersection? Put the phone down for a second, get through the turn, and then pick the phone back up & continue where you left off.

Its not difficult.

The one thing PSA's would be useful for, & we aren't doing it.

--also we need a PSA on how to use roundabouts.

Where's my daily Elon Musk story?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of fapping to yesterday's.

The study results are very believable

[KeithH]

Talking on a phone is different from talking to the passenger beside you. When one talks to a remote person, the brain creates a remote environment and moves its attention to that space. I'm not sure what is going on neurologically but the effect is very strong and I don't see an easy way around the problem. Perhaps we need to create an avatar for the other party that sits beside the driver in the car.

Stupid

[Frankie70]

Stupid study and stupid conclusion from the study.

It's like comparing if shooting your left foot is safer than shooting your right hand. Only a fool will consider these choices.

Texting while driving is bad... period

[emaname]

Admittedly, I'm an "old guy" so maybe I'm way out of touch with the times, but I'm fairly tech-savvy, well-educated, so FWIW...

I've had 4 very unsettling experiences of near head-on collisions. Each time I saw the other driver look up and get a very astonished look on their face after which they (thankfully) swerved back into their lane.

Meanwhile I was slowing down while maneuvering for safety on the shoulder or sidewalk.

I can only hope that the person who claims texting while driving is NOT a distraction has the same experience, at some point.

As far as talking on a phone is concerned, I have my doubts about that, too.

Again, this is from my personal experience, so YMMV.

I deal with a wide variety of subjects. Some of them are design-oriented. While discussing a subject re the design of something, I find myself visualizing that which I'm attempting to describe. Those are the times I've found myself vulnerable to inattentive driving. For example, I've had some close calls rear-ending other vehicles or missed my turn-off. I DO make a point of getting over to the slow lane and dropping my speed, but I've been surprised by a semi or two that had changed into my lane further up the road in front of me. I missed it because I was... distracted. So I've been guilty, too. (Apparently, something is not happening between my visual cortex and other cognitive functions. Although, my friends from the 60's would probably say... well, never mind. That's for another post.)

Now I hand my phone to my wife and ask her to take the call or exit or pull way off on the shoulder (which isn't all that safe either now-a-days). And when I get a call from someone whose name/cell number I recognize, I ask if they're driving first. I don't want to be the person on the other end of a phone call that contributed to an accident. Besides, I still think most of our phone calls can wait.

Come to think of it, I've even had people walk into me or nearly walk into me in stores while talking/texting on their phones.

Anyhow, please be careful, folks.

Oh yeah... and get off my lawn, kid.

I Want To See 'Em Test It Right

[rally2xs]

That's because... I think the drivers will be distracted anyway. I have a voice-controlled GPS that I was telling what to do and didn't even realize that I was distracted by it. Almost hit a mailbox. Nothing is foolproof other than devoting 100% of your attention to the road.

Texting uses the brain, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

While voice-activated transcription software does allow you to keep your eyes on the road, roughly the same amount of activity occurs in your brain because you are still using your speech center. This is a not insignificant contributor to distraction while driving and either texting or talking (even in hands-free mode).

Of course.

[Shurshacker]

"the Texas researchers should have tested Siri and Vlingo in car mode, where a Bluetooth headset or speakers are used..." "The study seems to have misunderstood how Siri was designed to be used," Right because ALL of the marketing shows Siri used this way.

But you're not meant to RTFM!

[RockDoctor]

'The study seems to have misunderstood how Siri was designed to be used,'

IIRC (I've not used it, and I'm not sure that I've seen it being used), Siri is a Mac application, for the Mac phone? So ... reading manuals should be utter anathema, as the user interface should be so obvious to the end user that you never need to consult the manual. Ever.

Does Mac Towers (or whatever gulag the Mac developers are incarcerated in) have a gibbet out the front for the bones of developers who suggested writing manuals?