Slashdot Mirror


Smart Cars: Too Distracting?

Taco Cowboy writes "The vehicles we drive are getting smarter and smarter, as more and more gadgets are being crammed into them. But as those devices creep into the driving experience, they offer the driver an increasing number of displays to monitor. Thus, drivers are more distracted than ever. At the recent 'Connected Car Expo,' which was held in Los Angeles, panelists discussed how these smart car features can impair driving ability. For example, researchers led by Bruce Mehler at MIT revealed that drivers using voice command interfaces to control in-car navigation systems or USB-connected music devices can end up spending longer with their eyes off the road than those using conventional systems. You'd think being able to operate it by voice alone would be beneficial compared to older radio systems. (Tuning an older radio was used as a baseline task in these tests.) But according to Mehler, problems arise when the system needs clarification of what the driver wants, which often happens while they're trying to feed an address into a navigation system."

31 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Better you look the road by Ateocinico · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dreamed of a custom computer system for my car. After just installing the video screen and audio system, I realized exactly that: you either drive or you manipulate the gadgetry. Let's put the intelligence where it belongs in a car: under the hood. Or go for a self driving car Google style.

    1. Re:Better you look the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Self driving car like Google's?

      No. See, when I was testing one, it kept taking me to places where it thought I would be interested in - places that paid Google for ads.

      So, instead to my destination, the Google car took me to McDonald's, then to Penny's and lastly to HomeDepot for their big sale.

      The really scary part was when it got on the Interstate to take me to Amazon because they have some online Christmas thing going on. That would have been a long drive since I'm on the East Coast.

      There were also these black SUVs that always seemed to know where I was going, too.

    2. Re:Better you look the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, adding the ``I'm feeling lucky'' button perhaps wasn't the best idea - we'll fix it in the next release of our car!

      Regards,
      Automotive Engineering Team
      Google Inc.

    3. Re:Better you look the road by CubicleZombie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thing is, it doesn't take an enormous amount of intelligence to drive. Otherwise we'd have PhD grads driving trucks.

      Your PhD grad probably couldn't drive a truck.

      --
      :wq
    4. Re:Better you look the road by fisted · · Score: 2

      Your PhD grad probably couldn't drive a truck.

      Your average truck driver would also be unable to drive a truck, if not being taught how to.

      Given the same level of truck driving education, i daresay the PhD grad would likely do better, because of more likeliness that he better understands driving physics.

    5. Re:Better you look the road by Noughmad · · Score: 2

      Not really, no. There are, however, many people of average intelligence who like to believe that.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    6. Re:Better you look the road by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Given the same level of truck driving education, i daresay the PhD grad would likely do better, because of more likeliness that he better understands driving physics.

      Except we've all seen evidence of PhDs having an awesome theoretical grasp of something, and absolutely zero practical grasp of something.

      I'm betting you can find people who can write you the equations, but not actually perform the task because they don't have the coordination or motor skills.

      I'm not convinced what you say is true, because I've seen a fair few people with a PhD who could barely operate a revolving door. Because, in some cases, the more you understand the underlying physics, the less you've ever done anything involving them and live in your own little bubble.

      My guess, take 10 high school students who enrolled in shop, and 10 PhD grads, give them each a month of training -- and you'll find a bias towards the high school students being pretty good, and the PhD grads being terrifying. I'm not saying ALL PhD grads, but I'm saying enough to be statistically significant.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Better you look the road by jimbobborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dream of a truly smart car that prevents the drivers from doing stupid shit while driving, like making that left turn in front of me while I'm riding my motorcycle.

    8. Re:Better you look the road by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Thing is, it doesn't take an enormous amount of intelligence to drive.

      Well, that explains the abysmally low accident rate...

      Oh, wait.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Better you look the road by TWX · · Score: 2

      I am personally acquainted with several MIT graduates that know how to operate heavy machinery, know how to go rock-crawling in old Jeeps, know how to quarter-mile drag-race in the eleven-second range, and my wife, also an MIT graduate, was a competitive ballroom dancer for a time.

      I have five friends with PhDs, and all of them have had hands-on experience with equipment in getting their doctorates.

      You're dreaming if you think that smart people are inept at interacting with the physical world in any way different than the regular population. If they were so terrible at it, their insurance rates would be higher than average, not lower than average.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    10. Re:Better you look the road by internerdj · · Score: 2

      I didn't find it too useful but my senator really enjoyed it for some reason.

    11. Re:Better you look the road by TonyJohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Self driving car like Google's?

      No. See, when I was testing one, it kept taking me to places where it thought I would be interested in - places that paid Google for ads.

      So, instead to my destination, the Google car took me to McDonald's, then to Penny's and lastly to HomeDepot for their big sale.

      That sounds a lot like my experience of the tuk-tuks in Bangkok.

      --
      Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
  2. Buttons vs Touch screens by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Informative

    One thing auto makers can do is bring back old-school dashboards with tactile buttons laid out in a distinct, logical way. My last two cars (a Peugeot and a Toyota) had this. Once you knew the layout of the dashboard, you could operate anything by feeling your way around, without ever taking your eyes off the road. My current car (a Volvo) has tactile buttons, but they are laid out in a grid, so it's harder to figure out what function it's for. The rental car I had the other day had a touch screen with the crappiest menu structure ever, operating anything on that required close attention and taking your eyes off the road. Not good.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Buttons vs Touch screens by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      user interfaces have gotton very shitty since a lot of it is outsourced and foreign designers have a 'grid' mentality (to save cost as the ONLY thing they care about).

      look at most guis, also. grids of buttons. they don't often stray from a matrix style of rows and columns. blech! there's no navigation ability (to find the button you want, quickly) when its all just anonymous style rows and cols.

      I always vary my gui designs and try to make each screen very unique and easy to quickly ID.

      when I build hardware, I vary the layout and use diff size and shape buttons and the more important ones are bigger and never near the dangerous ones (how many times have you seen a quit button next to a very important button, with a small mouse slip its easy to make a BIG mistake).

      gui layout is an art form but we give it to 'mechanical' style people (ie, robot thinking) and for manuf costs, we mostly go with grid layouts; which is really working against us, for human factors usability.

      finally, programmers won't commit to a set of features and they are also lazy. look at android. so many apps keep changing their layout. they dont' CARE if the user just learned the previous layout, they want change for change sake; and also because they were in such a rush to get something out, they have not taken enough time to think about what long-term buttons should be there and how to keep them stable from release to release (same location, color, shape and away from other 'dangerous' buttons that you don't want to hit by accident).

      on the side, I design and build hardware (audio gear and test equip gear) and all of my designs use hardware buttons and I think long and hard before I pick a layout. once I do, I stick with it and the goal is to have the gear still be around and useful 20 or more years later. almost no one has that goal anymore - what a shame.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Buttons vs Touch screens by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing auto makers can do is bring back old-school dashboards with tactile buttons laid out in a distinct, logical way.

      That's the kind of thing aircraft manufacturer's understood a long time ago. When they switched to "glass cockpits" they actually did serious ergonomic design and testing. That's why many key controls are still of the sort you mention, and some critical functions still use old-fashioned "analog" (really electro-mechanical) displays and whatnot. Even before they went to glass cockpits aircraft designs involved serious ergonomic design/testing. Part of it is that the greater complexity of aircraft, and the more advanced instrumentation compared to cars, forced them to confront this problem a long time ago. Part of it though is the aircraft industry has these eccentric ideas about making things functional and useful. With cars it's "look at the pretty lights - marketing will love this".

    3. Re:Buttons vs Touch screens by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly this. With a touch screen you MUST look at the device to command it. There's no alternative. With voice commands, they get triggered by conversation. (This happened to my in-laws when they were on the phone with my wife.) Or they could get triggered by audio coming over your radio. Imagine what happens when an ad for Burger King comes on the radio and they direct everybody to the nearest restaurant!

      This needs to become part of law and driving instructions. Fiddling with any kind of touch screen when in a driving lane needs to be against the law.

    4. Re:Buttons vs Touch screens by PowerBook2k · · Score: 2

      Most voice command systems I've ever seen (with the exception of Kinect and "OK Google") use some sort of button trigger before it will accept a command. Also, in cars, voice command systems will mute the radio when in "voice command mode".

    5. Re:Buttons vs Touch screens by doom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This needs to become part of law and driving instructions. Fiddling with any kind of touch screen when in a driving lane needs to be against the law.

      I have a suggestion, instead of creating a new law to cover each new gadget that someone invents, why don't we invent a single category, like say, "distracted driving" and actually enforce it?

      And if you don't want people using the features the manufacturer is putting in the car, maybe we could have some laws targeting the manufacturer... or how about we reduce corporate liability shields to the point where the manufacturer begins to worry that their products are killing people?

  3. News for Luddites? Stuff That Fears? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's with all the anti-tech posts lately? We're supposed to be technology for technologies sake! Drive me to distraction, I want radar, a HUD, ten different kinds of TV, wireless internet, porn, inflatable sexbots

    Let the mundanes worry about the safety crap.

    1. Re:News for Luddites? Stuff That Fears? by captbob2002 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My current car (2005 Pontiac Bonneville GXP) and prior car (1999 Bonneville SSE) both have/had HUDs - Love 'em. My mom's 2011 Camaro also has a HUD. Speed (and engine RPM in the Camaro) are shown constantly. High beam and turn indicators illuminated when active. A "Check gauges" Warning when idiot light on or gauge amiss. The two newer cars also show limited radio/song information but only when user is changing settings.

      I have really grown use to being able to seeing my speed without having to drop my eyes from the road. Shame these devices are not available in more cars. My 78 year old mom is so used to having a HUD in the car that she didn't want to buy a new car without one.

  4. Design a better User Interface? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the system needs clarification and this requires the driver to inspect the screen, isn't that a problem with the implementation?

    Clarification should be requested and should be given in voice alone.

    Anything else defeats the purpose of the voice interface, doesn't it?

    1. Re:Design a better User Interface? by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      Yes, it does defeat the purpose, but sometimes we need to know the current state of something in order to issue a new command. So you might not know what radio station your tuner is currently set to so you'd have to look down at the radio. Or you want to adjust the temperature/fan/defogger settings so you'd have to look down to see what the current settings are. I suppose you could have something like, "Car, what is the current vent setting?", reply, "The current vent setting is open for the driver side foot and torso.", "Car, open foot and windshield vents", "Acknowledged, opening driver side door.", "What? No don't do that.", "Acknowledged, unlatching safty restraint.", "Are you trying to kill me?", "Acknowledged, killing driver."

      Ok, I got a little carried away, but something I'd like to see is the use of smart glass to display interfaces on the users windshield in a sort of out of the way place, but where the driver doesn't have to take their eyes off the road. The top left or bottom left corner for countries where the driver sits on the left of the car as an example. Something like this, but it would have to be well designed and less cluttered. Maybe even not applied to the whole windshield just the part where a HUD is required so crap isn't popping up in front of you all the time.

  5. User Interfaces Need Maturity by Webcommando · · Score: 2

    Some of the distraction I find in my "smart car" features are due to poor user experience--location of hard buttons, layouts on screen of information or touch buttons ,and quality of speech recognition. From the article:

    Voice activated systems in newer radio systems would seem to offer an advantage over older car radios of keeping the drivers eyes on the road. (Indeed, tuning an older radio was used as a baseline task in these tests.) But according to Mehler, problems arise when the system needs clarification of what the driver wants

    It's the clarification that is the problem, not that it is voice activated (i.e. user experience). I find this with Siri when I'm driving (using built-in blue tooth to integrate it like a "smart" car function) when trying to listen to or respond to a text using voice. Approximately 1 out of 5 times Siri misunderstands a word and I have to change the message. This pulls my attention from driving and I usually give up and wait for a light to try again.

    This is just one example. In dash systems need more work on user experience.

    --
    I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
    1. Re:User Interfaces Need Maturity by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Informative

      Voice activated systems in newer radio systems would seem to offer an advantage over older car radios of keeping the drivers eyes on the road. (Indeed, tuning an older radio was used as a baseline task in these tests.) But according to Mehler, problems arise when the system needs clarification of what the driver wants

      It's the clarification that is the problem, not that it is voice activated (i.e. user experience).

      I think it's also important to compare apples to apples. Before navigation systems, what did I use to get someplace I don't know where to get to? A map and/or written directions. Sure, I went over it before I ever got in a car to drive, but as I progress in the route, you often have to double check stuff. Then you find yourself glancing over the map and the piece of paper, grabbing everything when you come to a stop sign or red light, etc. Basically, you're just as distracted.

      Navigation is distracting. Navigation now is less distracting. Both in the past and now, if you have a passenger you should let them navigate / be in charge of messing with the gps.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  6. Only while stationary by grahamm · · Score: 2

    Many of these smart systems - such as entering a destination into the navigation system should be made to only work while the vehicle is stationary so as not to distract the driver. It makes sense to input the destination before starting the journey rather than 'on the go'.

    1. Re:Only while stationary by vrt3 · · Score: 2

      But the system should make an exception when it senses that there is someone in the passenger seat.

      My previous car dissallowed control of the navigation system while driving, even when there was someone in the passenger seat who was perfectly able to safely control the navigation system. Very frustrating at times.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
  7. User interface design by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It all comes down to user interface design. A good interface will grab you attention only when it has something important to say. And it will avoid false warnings. A lousy interface *is* distracting. So is an interface that screws up, by grabbing your attention with incorrect or irrelevant information.

    Just as an example: my current car has a very distracting audible and visual warning when it detects ice on the road. The problem is: this warning delivers 99% false positives (in fact, it seems to be triggered simply by the thermometer crossing a temperature threshold (3C), in either direction). So - yes - it is a dangerous distraction. However, if the manufacturer had actually gotten it right, it would have been very valuable.

    As far as issuing commands, it is really the same thing: poor design. Is the interface reliable enough that you can trust it to do what you say? Does it give positive confirmation, or leave you wondering?

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:User interface design by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Mine does that as well. You get to hear a chime and something is flashing on the dash and when you look it it telling you that it is cold and thus there might be ice on the road . On my car it happens any time it is at or below 37F so at this point it has become something I completely ignore. My thought with that stupid warning is of course it is cold out I just got in my car from being in that same weather. Had they been smart about it they could have had the parameters such that if after 10 minutes of driving the temp falls below some threshold (not starts there or falls there immediately after leaving the garage) then give a little warning but now is the 6 months of the year when every time I start my car it will chime and flash the temp at me. I know it is cold and that there might be ice on the road, I can see the ice on the road and just froze my ass off brushing the snow off of you.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  8. we should understand why we have these by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    smart cars, connected cars that is, are regular cars with more gadgets and gizmos. cars that check email, report weather, play pandora and such are a recent development of course, and not one i may add that many drivers care for. Some argue they exist as a marketing effort to spur millenials to purchase automobiles. As a millenial myself, and one with an automobile that gladly interfaces with my phone to play pandora radio, I can confirm the marketing effort is misplaced.
    what executives and marketing C-levels dont understand is that boomers drove because it was still fun. gas was inexpensive, income was plentiful to afford a car and its upkeep, and the novelty of road trips was still something most americans found fascinating and entertaining. Gen Xers piled their kids into SUV's for the ego stroke and gas, while not expensive, was still relatively affordable but something else changed. Traffic was becoming universally abhorrent. the much adored culdesac street planning mandate from the sixties had snarled it for miles and government budgets began to resemble holocaust victims to such a degree that potholes capable of puncturing a tire became commonplace on most commutes. the Xers responded by buying larger SUV's like the H2 and turning up the 20 speaker stereo to drown out the din of the crumbling pavement on their way to the cube farm.

    fast forward to the millenials of today. the economic collapse of 2008 has caused most governments to send their highway planning divisions packing as their budgets turn tits up. highways and byways now look more like Reuters photos of bombed out occupied zones. Gasoline is so expensive as to make a road trip a punchline, and traffic congestion models the zombie apocalypse flicks we've glued ourselves to for the last 5 years. whats worse is most of the millenials you see today are falling apart under the weight of their college loans and an average wage thats declined precipitously for 30 years under the guise of free market capitalism. "a new car" for most millenials is a used SUV from a gen-Xer who just had to sell it to make the mortgage gestapo leave them alone for another week. factoring its voraceous appetite for gas, its high mileage, and its mad-max driver, all we've scored is a time-bomb with eddie bauer seats. So lets address the C-levels now...you want to sell us a new, tiny car with lots of gizmos and great gas mileage for less than 20k and while we applaud the offering we still can barely afford, the roads still suck and the insurance is only slightly less expensive than our education loans. Thank you no, the idea smacks of stupidity.

    I can take the bus for a fraction of the cost of owning a car. I dont care if it takes 45 minutes because I have a smart phone, or tablet. im connected to all my friends, including the one im going to meet up with for drinks and dinner. my phone will warn me about making my stop, and let me recharge the fare on my card while i leave the driving to a competent, qualified and much more seasoned bus driver. i dont have to pay insurance, worry about parking, fret about the cost of gas, or earn a ticket for speeding

    to put it quite simply: stop trying to sell me a $30,000 iphone case with wheels.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  9. Lack of Tactile by Ameryll · · Score: 2

    The worst is the lack of tactile inputs on the console because everyone wants to look 'futuristic!'. You can't just reach over and turn the radio off because you can't find the knob w/o looking. It's dangerous, and stupid. Put the physical dials back.

  10. They suck by andyring · · Score: 2

    I'm with most of the commenters here. We have a small fleet of company cars (5). We recently upgraded them as our existing vehicles, despite being 2008 models, were around 350k miles. Anyway, I evaluated a Ford Focus and hated it. The whole darn thing was a computer, or so it seemed. I want my employees focusing on the ROAD, not the vehicle gadgets. We ended up going with 2013 Honda Civics after my boss got involved because he's friends with the salesman. Even those are very sucky. The menu interfaces are total crap, make no sense, even to the point of feeling counterintuitive. The salesman I worked with kept touting "it's got Bluetooth, bluetooth, bluetooth" until he was practically blue in the face. I told him "Bluetooth whatever. How do I turn off all this shit?" He looked dumbfounded.

    I don't need some distracting info graphic to tell me a door is open. If a car is smart enough to tell me a tire is low, tell me WHICH DAMN TIRE. And if I want to turn on the radio, let me turn a little dial in the middle of the front console area, not some generic plus-minus button on a steering wheel that does different things every time I touch it. Otherwise I end up being frustrated with the stupid thing and not focusing on driving safely.