Studies Conclude Hands-Free-calling and Apple Siri Distract Drivers

New submitter operator_error writes with a story at the L.A. Times that echoes some previous research on the relative risks of hand-held vs. hands-free phones by drivers, and comes to an even grimmer conclusion: In many cars, making a hands-free phone call can be more distracting than picking up your phone, according to a new study from AAA and the University of Utah. In-dash phone systems are overly complicated and prone to errors, the study found, and the same is true for voice-activated functions for music and navigation. A companion study also found that trying to use Siri — the voice control system on Apple phones — while driving was dangerously distracting. Two participants in the study had virtual crashes in an automotive simulator while attempting to use Siri, the study's authors reported. In response, Toyota said the study did not show a link between cognitive distraction and car crashes. "The results actually tell us very little about the relative benefits of in-vehicle versus hand-held systems; or about the relationship between cognitive load and crash risks," said Mike Michels, a Toyota spokesman. Meanwhile, many states treat hand-held devices very differently from hands-free ones; in New York, for instance, both texting and talking on a hand-held mobile phone are put in the same category, while talking on a hands-free device is covered only by more general distracted driving laws. If the Utah study is correct, maybe that's backwards. (And some evidence suggests that phone use in cars is not quite the straightforward danger that it's sometimes presented as, despite the correlation of phone use with accidents.)

Comments

So..

[rockabilly]

With this revelation will the government allow phone use now?

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

With this revelation will the government allow phone use now?

Here's another way of asking that question:

With this revelation will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?

With the prevalence of cell phones today (for those counting, that would be ALL drivers on the road) and the average persons ignorance (it'll never happen to me), a deadly accident isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Enjoy the very freedom our society still wants to give killers on the road. Just don't bitch about it when it hits home.

Oh yeah, I forgot. It'll never happen to you, right?

Re:So..

[Mr D from 63]

I've not gone back to the actual test report, and its not stated in the article, but I wonder if the test subjects were already familiar with the technologies before being tested. If you get in an unfamiliar vehicle, even finding the windshield wiper can be a big distraction. If these subjects are first time or inexperienced users, you can bet they are distracted. Do a test with folks that regularly use the technology and have developed as ease with the interfaces, and then see what the differences are.

Re:So..

[rockabilly]

You make it sound like I'm actually endorsing this. I am not. I don't even own a cell and I don't care to. Still though, if the rule is choosing the lesser of two evils, which one is better (or worse)?

Re:So..

[Wootery]

With this revelation will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?

No, the government will never support you putting someone behind bars. Imprisonment is only allowed when the government does it.

With the prevalence of cell phones today (for those counting, that would be ALL drivers on the road) and the average persons ignorance (it'll never happen to me), a deadly accident isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Yep. Just like it was before we'd invented cell phones.

I'll spell it out for you: it's always a matter of probability.

Enjoy the very freedom our society still wants to give killers on the road. Just don't bitch about it when it hits home.

So... it's only right to be upset about traffic fatalities if there are strict laws in place?

Oh yeah, I forgot. It'll never happen to you, right?

Again, this has nothing to do with cell-phone use.

Re:So..

[rockabilly]

Indeed. I didn't read the article but I did hear about it on the radio driving into work (yes, radio). Driving is chocked full of little distractions, but what the interviewer said was that the digital control on the dash is even more distractive than a phone. I can relate to that - I drove a 2014 rental with one of those. I was a major distraction, and also a pain in the ass. I like my manual controls thank you.

Re:So..

[LordLimecat]

Killing someone is already illegal, and Im of the school of thought that says having redundant laws is always a bad thing. Never have 2 laws where one will do; if killing someone through negligence is illegal, killing someone because of your cellphone doesnt need to be differently illegal.

Re:So..

[kenshin33]

except one of them enables milking of some cash cow!

Re:So..

[Mr D from 63]

Its a crap shoot. I just drove a rental this weekend with a touch screen interface. I had my music on USB and I found it quite a bit easier than normal to navigate my music. However, adjusting the freakin air temperature was an adventure.

I once had a rental in Germany and accidentally hit a button. The car kept asking me a question in German and I had no clue what to say or do. Eventually, I hit the right button to stop the inquisition.

Re:So..

[gstoddart]

Killing someone is already illegal, and Im of the school of thought that says having redundant laws is always a bad thing.

Except, making it illegal to do the thing which could potentially lead to you killing someone isn't redundant.

Otherwise, drunk driving, seat belts, helmets and speed limits wouldn't be necessary until you killed someone.

Distracted driving laws are intended to stop the problem in the first place, instead of waiting until people actually get killed. They allow you to fine people for doing stupid and dangerous things before someone dies.

And, judging by the number of people I see still texting and driving (badly), the only way I see this changing is through a mechanism like this. Because without fines (and hopefully demerit points), people will just keep doing it ... right up until they do kill someone.

Re:So..

[StrangeBrew]

A large number of people are incapable of properly operating both a cell phone and moving vehicle at the same time. Those that text/read email/websites on their phone while operating a moving vehicle are performing two mutually exclusive tasks at the same time. To be fair, there are too many drivers on the road who can't even drive properly when that is the only task they are performing, but that's a separate issue.

Re:So..

[Iniamyen]

On a related note, it's been shown again and again that you can't really do more than one higher-level brain task at once. So even the people that are very very good at switching rapidly between operating a cell phone and driving are still not really doing both at the same time.

So they aren't actually performing the task of driving while they are preoccupied with their cell phone. They may as well be asleep during those periods.

Re:So..

[Dishevel]

No.

In California when they first passed the hands free laws they actually used a study that said that hands free was just as bad as holding the phone as justification for the law.

The problem in the US is that the politicians have figured out just how truly stupid and lazy the majority of people are and are using that to their advantage.

Re:So..

[ArhcAngel]

will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?

Forget the teens...I see soccer moms and jerks every day all day with their heads in their laps cluelessly driving down the freeway. The look of indignation when I honk and "wave" are priceless. It's that "I'm a responsible driver. I know how to text and drive safely. How dare you!" look. This should be a night in jail mandatory sentence for depraved indifference IMO. A couple of those and it might start to change. But with cops being just as big offenders that's not likely to happen.

Re:So..

[JesseMcDonald]

That's not necessarily a problem, though. You should be able to look away or think about something else for a short time without getting into an accident; driving should not require your full attention every millisecond of the trip. People just aren't capable of maintaining that level of attention on one thing for extended periods. Some degree of distraction is necessary if you want to remain in the proper frame of mind for driving (c.f. "highway hypnosis"). The trick is to plan ahead, allow for how quickly conditions can change, and allow yourself time to react. Naturally, that depends quite a bit on the driving conditions. Hazards can appear much more quickly when driving 25 MPH through a dense suburban residential area—where a one-second lapse could easily mask a child running out from behind a parked car—than at 70 MPH on an open highway through flat countryside with good visibility for miles around, where a lapse in attention ten times as long is unlikely to pose much of a risk.

Re:So..

[NatasRevol]

Like a 16 yr old driver trying to figure out the radio in a new car.

Re:So..

[timeOday]

I'm getting a little tired of these lab studies, which may or may not be missing some crucial factor. Has nobody done a randomized study in which a few thousand people go without cellphone use during driving for a few months to see if they have fewer accidents than a control group that does whatever they normally do?

Re:So..

[Austerity Empowers]

As long as I can play with my cell phone, I won't have a hand free for the whiskey bottle.

Re:So..

[PRMan]

I'm wondering about touchscreens. On my Acura, if I wanted to do virtually anything on the car, I could just touch a single button or the screen. On my new car, I have to navigate through pages of menus using a rotator knob. Somehow, this is considered "safer" than just touching a screen. I'm at a total loss to understand this.

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I see, the problem is that distracted drivers run on a sort of auto pilot that fails to see the bigger picture or unusual situations.

A typical experience for me would be a driver that passes me (I'm in a bicycle lane). Since they don't have to navigate around me, I'm not added to their mental map. Since bicycle lanes are relatively rare, they work of the assumption they are currently occupying the rightmost lane. Then they make an right hand turn across the bike lane, cutting me off.

From their perspective, I've come out of nowhere. (I've actually had the last driver to strike me tell me this!) It's gotten to the point where I run very bright blinking lights during the day. It's annoying to others and inconvenient to myself, but it forces drivers to recognize me.

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop pretending a piece of exercise equipment is a vehicle and get off the road then.

Re:So..

[PigleT]

*Are* rules about drunk-driving, speed limits and seatbelts actually necessary?

The way to look at it is this: some eejit over ----> there writing a "rule" down on a piece of paper is not going to have a measurable effect on whether I crash or not in a given period. Laws are not there to prevent Newtonian physics. Accidents gonna happen. However, they *are* there in order that, when you wipe-out and take a bunch of folks with you, they then have grounds on which to prosecute your piddly ass - the same set of grounds as anyone else doing the same silly thing. That's where the fairness comes in.

For this reason, I suggest that people chill out about use of mobiles whilst driving - stop treating the act as inherently wrong, but by all means consider it a potential contributing factor when an accident occurs.

Re:So..

[gmhowell]

I once had a rental in Germany and accidentally hit a button. The car kept asking me a question in German and I had no clue what to say or do. Eventually, I hit the right button to stop the inquisition.

I didn't expect this inquisition just from driving a car...

Re:So..

[Cabriel]

Really, the study doesn't imply that using hands-free is worse. It actually implies that bad user-interfaces are worse. How does the distraction hold up once the call has been connected and the conversation has started?

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing someone is already illegal [...] killing someone because of your cellphone doesnt need to be differently illegal.

Well then it is a good thing that what we are talking about is making specific acts that might result in death illegal, not about making the death itself illegal multiple times. And that absolutely should be done again, and again, and again, for each specific act you wish to outlaw. Because if you simply write a law that says "death due to negligence is illegal", who defines what is a negligent action?

Laws should detail the exact thing that is being made illegal, there shouldn't be any sort of "wiggleroom" that a dickass prosecutor can use to force injustice in the name of justice.

Re:So..

[sexconker]

Its a crap shoot. I just drove a rental this weekend with a touch screen interface. I had my music on USB and I found it quite a bit easier than normal to navigate my music. However, adjusting the freakin air temperature was an adventure.

I once had a rental in Germany and accidentally hit a button. The car kept asking me a question in German and I had no clue what to say or do. Eventually, I hit the right button to stop the inquisition.

You couldn't have swapped in Spain for Germany? No one would have fucking known. What a missed opportunity.

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because hands-on cellphone use is less dangerous than hands-free cellphone use, you think you should have the right to use a hands-on approach to using your cellphone behind the wheel? By that logic, we should all be allowed to drive with our knees, while putting on makeup / shaving, because doing that while driving is less dangerous than giving a blowjob to the guy in the passenger seat while driving. And giving a blowjob to the guy in the passenger seat should be allowed, because doing that while driving is less dangerous than being drunk and doing that while driving. And being drunk and giving a blowjob to the guy in the passenger seat should be allowed because it is less dangerous than.. well, you get the idea.

Re:So..

[JesseMcDonald]

Since bicycle lanes are relatively rare, [drivers] work of the assumption they are currently occupying the rightmost lane. Then they make an right hand turn across the bike lane, cutting me off.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not at all surprised that drivers have trouble with bike lanes. They violate several basic principles of safe driving. For example, you're normally supposed to turn right from the rightmost driving lane, but (familiarity aside) the bike lane isn't large enough for a normal-sized vehicle to fit, so drivers don't think of it as a driving lane. It's more like an extension of the shoulder, or a sidewalk. In some (most?) areas you're supposed to "merge" into the bike lane before turning (implying that cyclists should allow the driver to merge and wait for them to turn), but you can't really merge because there isn't enough space to move out of your original lane; you end up occupying both and blocking traffic. And of course, it's inherent in the design that you have vehicles moving at radically different speeds in adjacent lanes with no physical barrier—not even so much as a curb.

And then there's my own pet concern which comes up every time I pass a cyclist in a bike lane... if the cyclist should happen to fall, for whatever reason, there's a 50% chance they'll end up right in front of my car. Bike lanes are wide enough for an upright bicycle, but not one laying on its side. I really wish that they would just widen the sidewalks and dedicate a portion to wheeled traffic, rather than adding bike lanes to the roadway. Barring that, they should use the same lanes and follow the same rules as automobiles—with particular attention to the part about slow traffic pulling off onto the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass. Adding more special cases helps no one.

Lest you think the offenses are all on the drivers' side, I regularly see people riding the wrong way down a bike lane (against the adjacent traffic), or cycling on the sidewalk or even through a parking zone despite the presence of a bike lane. It's also far too common for a long line of vehicles to be stuck waiting behind a cyclist struggling to ascend a tall hill in a no-passing zone (or attempt to pass the cyclist illegally) when the cyclist should move out of the way. It may be true that most cyclists also happen to hold a drivers' license, that only helps for the parts cars and bikes have in common; they need to pay more attention to the traffic laws with special applicability to cyclists.

Re:So..

[ultranova]

With this revelation will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?

No, because it's not the 17-year old's fault someone let a minor control a dangerous machine. They're a minor for a reason.

Re:So..

[Your.Master]

there writing a "rule" down on a piece of paper is not going to have a measurable effect on whether I crash or not in a given period.

Citation needed. Writing a rule down on a piece of paper leads to enforcement of such rules, and enforcement of such rules typically leads to people avoiding breaking those rules *even if they disagree with the rule and are only trying not to get caught*. If the rule happens to promote safety, then it would be expected that writing that rule on that legal piece of paper could promote safety.

For a non-safety-related case, you could just walk around in Seattle after the first legal pot shops opened and smell the Marijuana everywhere in a way you didn't the previous week. Some of that was just excitement about a change, to be sure.

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sidewalks aren't the solution. The risk of serious injury or death increases for sidewalk riders, because sidewalks and their intersections with roads and alleys aren't designed for more than just walking speed.

In a perfect world, the solution would be to teach all bicyclists to ride in a predictable and safe manner, while teaching all drivers how to behave around cyclists, and giving both groups a good dose of patience.

I do agree there's plenty of law breaking cyclists. But even as another cyclist, I tend not to worry about them too much. A cyclist that breaks the law is unlikely to kill me or anyone else except themselves. A driver that carelessly breaks the law has a very serious chance of causing death. A law breaking cyclist is a risk to themselves. A law breaking automobile driver is a risk to others.

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

Accidents gonna happen

However you can reduce the probability of an accident and thus the total number of accidents, reduce the severity of the accident, and reduce the impact in those involved.

The number of accidents is always going to be greater than zero, but you can control how far above.

Re:So..

[Nethemas the Great]

Until these studies incorporate other forms of distraction for comparison these studies are pointless. Stick the conversants in the same car, measure the driving competence; use a hands free, measure competence; have them hold the phone, measure competence; have them eat a cheeseburger, measure competence. No one does. They all seem to start from a foundation of bias against mobile usage.

I'm not sure whether the person sitting next to you vs. hands-free phone call would be worse--though I suspect the person sitting next to you would result in poorer vehicle operation since there's also a visual distraction. However, the fool with his hand cemented to his ear is definitely going to drive poorer than the other two scenarios. Distracted or not, I guarantee the dumba** with only one free hand is going to not bother using turn signals. The cheeseburger guy in comparison will be a nightmare to everyone else on the road.

Re:So..

[mjwx]

I've not gone back to the actual test report, and its not stated in the article, but I wonder if the test subjects were already familiar with the technologies before being tested. If you get in an unfamiliar vehicle, even finding the windshield wiper can be a big distraction. If these subjects are first time or inexperienced users, you can bet they are distracted. Do a test with folks that regularly use the technology and have developed as ease with the interfaces, and then see what the differences are.

They probably are experienced users.

The dunning-kruger effect is a strong argument against your assertion that experienced users will be less distracted. I've seen plenty of "experienced" tech users become completely oblivious to everything around them then walking into traffic, streetlights, chairs and tables, other pedestrians. I shudder to think how bad these people are behind the wheel.

Re:So..

[Barsteward]

a simple solution is to ban use of phones in moving cars completely. Just how important is that phone call? Unless its someone calling me to do something like press the big red nucleur button to save lives immediately, its not that important that i can't get off the road and take the call 5/10 minutes later

Re:So..

[Barsteward]

why not? you can steer with your knees

Re:So..

[Barsteward]

true, but they would have a semantic argument that using your phone is not negligent. unfortunately common sense in law is open to abuse. Just look at how many communication laws have had to be updated to include new forms of technology even though the "illegal process" is the same regardless of how its done, people got away with shit because "xxx" wasn't mentioned

Re:So..

[Mr D from 63]

I am not sure what your point is. I am simply asking for a study that reflects the real world situation, and not asserting anything. I am not sure that your anecdotal observations of people using tech on the sidewalk apply to users of hands free technology in cars, and I think if you want to do a good study, you should consider that the experienced users of hands free technology may be less distracted than the inexperienced users. The results will be what they will be.

Re:So..

[Agent0013]

For a non-safety-related case, you could just walk around in Seattle after the first legal pot shops opened and smell the Marijuana everywhere in a way you didn't the previous week. Some of that was just excitement about a change, to be sure.

And somehow you think these people did not smoke before the law was changed? That would be highly unbelievable.

Re:So..

[lucien86]

One of our school bus drivers used to do that - also while reading the newspaper. (this was Northumberland UK) Mind you the bus was an ancient relic and could only do about 30-40 mph. Ahhh the days before health and safety...

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately common sense in law is open to abuse. Just look at how many communication laws have had to be updated to include new forms of technology

That sounds like the correct way to go about it. Because the law is supposed to be "permitted unless otherwise forbidden".

Unless you are talking about laws that needed to be updated to keep government in check. Because when it comes to government, the way it is supposed to work is "forbidden unless otherwise permitted". There should not need to be a new law that says "yes, even on a computer, the government still cannot do X".

Re:So..

[beastofburdon]

"press the big red nucleur button to save lives"

Really? Couldn't you have come up with something that actually makes a little bit of sense? Maybe something like a doctor being called in to the emergency room, or an ambulance driver taking a call on the radio to get directions to an emergency.

But you go with using a nuclear weapon "saving" lives. Are you even aware of what these things do? They do not save lives, they exterminate them.

Re:So..

[Plumpaquatsch]

With this revelation will the government allow phone use now?

Here's another way of asking that question:

With this revelation will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?

With the prevalence of cell phones today (for those counting, that would be ALL drivers on the road) and the average persons ignorance (it'll never happen to me), a deadly accident isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Isn't it a question of "How many more?" already?

Driverless Car

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty funny that this article is right on top of the driverless city they're building in Michigan.
Please make autonomous cars a reality so we can finally stop having careless drivers on the road killing 40 000 in the USA alone every year.

Re:Driverless Car

[YrWrstNtmr]

They will be. Just not as soon as you'd like.

Re:Driverless Car

[flayzernax]

We'll get there. And I agree. Better to boil the human error down a notch from the entire driving population to a few engineers and scientists who've devoted their careers to making viable driver less cars.

Re:Driverless Car

[flu1d]

Indeed, we can easily double that with indifferent machinery.

Re:Driverless Car

[Anonymous Coward]

But I will immediately install the hacked firmware for my car that enables the "careless mode"...

Re:Driverless Car

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please make autonomous cars a reality so we can finally stop having careless drivers on the road killing 40 000 in the USA alone every year."

Are you under some weird impression that there is going to be a point in time where the govt mandates (or has the authority to mandate) that everyone switches from standard cars to autonomous?

There will be, at a minimum, about a 20 year period of time where traffic will be comprised of both standard cars and autonomous. There is no magic switch that is going to get thrown.

latest update!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good looking pedestrians distract drivers... Time to ban walking!

Re:latest update!

[jellomizer]

I must agree.

Re:latest update!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Or looking good. ;-)

Re:latest update!

[Kokuyo]

Hell, a billboard's sole purpose is to garner your attention but interestingly enough, nobody seems to care about those.

Re:latest update!

[kenshin33]

what about road signs, especially not well written ones ?

Re:latest update!

[amalcolm]

In the UK advertising billboards are forbidden along motorways. Hence the proliferation of dead, high sided vehicles parked in fields with advertising on them.

So does scratching your nose

[cjonslashdot]

And I would rather be a tiny bit distracted, at a safe moment when I make sure that I have plenty of car lengths in front of me, than be lost, wandering around trying to find my way. The maps application is one of the best driving innovations every. And Siri is fantastic, in that you don't have to fiddle with an address book on your car's console - you just say, "Call Joe". To me, it _enhances_ safety. And for those who think that I should not talk and drive, then remember the times that you were running late, and felt the need to rush, whereas by calling someone and saying you are a little bit late, you remove the pressure and you can slow down.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[sahuxley]

You should pull over to do any of those things. Running late or being in a hurry never has, and never will be a good excuse to risk causing an accident. To say that it's less dangerous than actions that also involve hands is a poor defense.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[cjonslashdot]

Life is not about eliminating all risk. It is about managing risk in an intelligent manner. Driving is by itself very dangerous, so if we undertake the minimize risk, we should not drive at all. My point above was that it is very possible to intelligently and carefully use a cellphone and drive - just as it is possible to listen to the radio and drive safely. I am sure that studies would show that radios cause distraction as well. That is not saying that everyone will use a cellphone safely - on that I certainly agree!

Re:So does scratching your nose

[amalcolm]

'intelligently ' = that's your problem right there.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[cjonslashdot]

My friend, are you saying that you don't listen to the radio while driving? And are you saying that you don't talk to other passengers while driving? Do you use a GPS system while driving?

Re:So does scratching your nose

[Iniamyen]

I'm too lazy to Google yet another reference to a study, but what you said is just not true. Something like listening to the radio is very passive and requires minimal attention. Talking on a cell phone requires you to form thoughts and sentences, which means you aren't paying attention to the task of driving during these periods. They are just not the same.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[suutar]

of course it's not a good excuse. That doesn't and never will mean that it does not motivate people to accept more risk.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[cjonslashdot]

So that is a judgment - an exercise of intelligence. You are making a judgment that turning the radio knob will not put you in danger. Presumably you do it at a moment when you have several car lengths in front of you. Also, have you ever arrived at a destination and then realized that you don't remember anything about driving there? Perhaps you were lost in thought the whole time...

Re:So does scratching your nose

[Morpeth]

Point is this -- you don't truly NEED to call Joe do you, do you? No. The only call you ever might NEED to make is a 911 call.

And that's the problem, using running late, or I 'really need to call so and so', or not knowing where you're going as an excuse for being distracted, and putting the rest of us at risk.

I drive my young daughter to school every morning (and I live in city with a lot of traffic/gridlock), and it pisses me off to no fucking end the number of people fucking around with their phone for some 'important' thing. The only important thing you NEED to do when driving is having your fucking hands on the wheel and your eyes AND attention on the road. Period, justify or excuse all you want, but you and I both know that's the truth.

If you can't get you shit together in time in the morning, then get up 30 minutes earlier, this so called 'pressure' you talk about is self-induced. Try getting a 5 year old ready for school, I get up 1.5 hrs before I need to leave so that I have everything ready and I can leave on time and be focused on driving.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[Morpeth]

"My point above was that it is very possible to intelligently and carefully use a cellphone and drive"

And yet study after study after study contradict that assertion, but let me guess -- those don't apply to you, of course not...

Re:So does scratching your nose

[cjonslashdot]

I am not like those people who talk on their phone all the time, including when they are picking up their kids. I am on my cellphone rarely, but when I do use it, it is really beneficial, and I am very careful. I tend to agree with you that many people are not so careful and they use it too much behind the wheel. In the morning I see so many people chatting on their phones while driving. I think that since their risky driving puts us all at risk, it might be better to limit cellphone use while driving, but it is a shame, because it penalizes those who are very careful.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[Anonymous Coward]

you also forget the 35000 people killed per year by the people who "can use a cellphone while driving". Second only to drunk drivers for non-health related deaths in the US. Beats out firearms even. And that's sad since most firearm deaths are intentional, with accidental firearm deaths only counting a few hundred per year.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[nblender]

exactly this. I do a lot of highway driving by myself, generally on weekends. I listen to the radio just fine. But occasionally I've found myself texting periodically with someone about some problem. Quiet back country rural roads. I'm texting with the phone on the dash, so I'm not moving my head, just adjusting the my focusing distance typing about 1 cps... I find that when I'm finished that task, I don't remember any part of the intervening journey... My mind went on auto-pilot and exercised all the correct turns... I just don't remember it. So, for me, I consider that to be 'distracted driving' and it makes me uncomfortable. I know lots of people who claim they can drive and text at the same time without any negative effect. I don't believe them but good for them... I know I can't. So now I just pull over when I find myself needing to respond something more complicated than 'y' or 'n'.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love that the parent was modded down. The reason? They disagree with the post. There is nothing flamebait about it.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because no intelligent person was ever in a traffic accident, and if they were, it was the other persons fault.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[sexconker]

You should pull over to do any of those things. Running late or being in a hurry never has, and never will be a good excuse to risk causing an accident. To say that it's less dangerous than actions that also involve hands is a poor defense.

Police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances all seem to be excused for driving fast, on the wrong side of the road, blowing through stop signs and traffic signals, etc. on the premise that they're in a hurry.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[operagost]

Reductio ad absurdum demands we should never go more than 25 MPH or have radios or passengers. Every person who dies in an accident is our fault until we do.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[Iniamyen]

You originally said "listening to the radio."

If you are now talking about tuning the radio, I would argue that it's far more distracting. You are actually taking your attention off of driving, and using it to turn the knob, decide if you like the next station, continue tuning, etc... It's an active task. It's not a passive task. Just because we have trouble defining "active" and "passive" in real-world use cases doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Re:So does scratching your nose

[cjonslashdot]

Yes, tuning the radio is very distracting. In fact, cars that pop up alerts are very dangerous IMO. And the worst designs are those that have modal displays: e.g., when the radio shows either the time or the station and you have to toggle to see one or the other - that takes your eyes off the road. One thing is for sure: dialing a phone is _very_ distracting - as much as texting. I agree with you that talking on the phone is not a great idea in general. I am just not ready to completely eliminate it, because I think that sometimes it is a rational risk if one compensates by being extra careful. But again, people in general do not have the best judgment about these things, so perhaps it should be banned. I personally am really looking forward to driverless cars!

Re:So does scratching your nose

[mjwx]

My friend, are you saying that you don't listen to the radio while driving?

Not the radio no, I do have music but when I'm concentrating on driving I completely zone that out. One minute I'm listening to Stairway, before I know it the song has changed to Teen Spirit. Of course time has passed between the two, but I spent that time paying attention to the road, not the song.

If I start ignoring a phone call, the other person becomes increasingly annoying in trying to get my attention.

And are you saying that you don't talk to other passengers while driving?

When I need to concentrate, I stop talking. The person in the car is also aware of the current situation so they do the same instead of shouting "Frank, Frank, Frank. FRANK. FRAAAAAAAAAANK" until I answer.

Do you use a GPS system while driving?

No, I have a navigational ability above that of a braindead squirrel. Besides this, a GPS device does not require me to respond to it. Navigational system manufacturers have gone to great lengths to ensure their devices aren't dangerous distractions.

Now are you honestly trying to compare momentary distractions to a continuous distraction that has been proven time and time again to be a significant factor in motor vehicle crashes. Put the phone down and concentrate on the road. You are not capable of calling and driving at the same time, this goes double for those who think they are.

misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is people who are incompetent with technology. I've never had a problem pushing a button on my car stereo and saying "Call Home." There is nothing distracting about that for moderately competent people. The problem is people like your aunt or uncle who are basically morons in the technological realm -- the same people who couldn't figure out how to program a VCR. Yes, for those people I can see how fiddling with a hands-free device while driving would be distracting. So once again, the idiots of the world spoil it for everyone else.

Re: misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

"Call home."

"Did you say, 'Call 911?'"

"No."

"Thank you, calling 911."

And that is the moment it gets distracting...

Re: misleading

[ArcadeMan]

The good thing about this case though, is that emergency services will be on their way before you have the accident.

Re: misleading

[Cro Magnon]

"Call home."

"Did you say, 'Call 911?'"

"No."

"Thank you, calling 911."

And that is the moment it gets distracting...

Interesting point. I've never had trouble RECEIVING phone calls over my car bluetooth. But I recently tried to make a call, and with all the problems getting the POS to understand me, I was pounding on the dashboard and yelling all sorts of obscenities at my car. Luckily, I was still parked when I made the call, or I probably would have crashed into something.

Re:misleading

[serviscope_minor]

There is nothing distracting about that for moderately competent people.

Out of interest why are you even here? If science doesn't work neither does your computer.

This has been tested time and time and time again. If you're doing anything like that then your reactions WILL be slowed down. The end. And once you're calling home, same. It's been shown time and again that such things also slow down your reactions.

So once again, the idiots of the world spoil it for everyone else.

In this case, the idiot is you and the people who think you're insightful.

Re:misleading

[operagost]

Fantastic. Just thought I'd let you know, I'm removing the passenger seats and radio from your car so that you don't need to worry about being distracted.

Re: misleading

[bugs2squash]

Talking to another person in the car seems to be a part of the usual driving experience since cars were invented. Presumably no-one believes that is something that one should ban. I understand that the passenger might be looking out the window which overall ups the total amount of attention being spent on the road, but that's not always the case.

I think that there is something else about the experience of using hands-free phones that makes them more of a distraction at all phases of the call. I'd be interested to see what happens to the level of driver distraction as the audio quality of the call improves. I have certainly felt I need to shout and stare at the bluetooth handsfree adapter to communicate at times.

If it could render every mumble with high fidelity, cut down on the latency and otherwise meet or beat the standard of audio that is achieved by having the intercourse in the car (so to speak !) I think the amount of distraction might go down. In any case, it is something that cellular providers and car audio equipment makers can monetize.

Re:misleading

[serviscope_minor]

So, your argument is that because you have some distractions in your car, there should be no reason not to have more?

And this, people, is why we can't have nice things.

Re:misleading

[Nethemas the Great]

Phone use while driving is a distraction, fine. What about cheeseburger eating? What about makeup application? What about conversing with a passenger? What about listening to the radio? What about adjusting the temperature? The blonde standing on the side of the road? ...

Where does the phone in its various modes of use stack up against the myriad ways in which a driver might be distracted? I have never heard of any such studies. Regardless of distraction, what is the overall competence of the driver for each of these myriad alternatives to full attention, hands on 10 and 2 (or 9 and 3)? The dumba** with a cheeseburger isn't going to use a turn signal any more than the one with his hand glued to his ear. The bimbo turned around yelling at her brats is just as unlikely to notice the evolving situation in front of her as the one updating her Facebook page.

Re:misleading

[Nethemas the Great]

No the argument is that everyone is unfairly ganging up on mobile use to the exclusion of all the other ways a driver can be placed in a sub-optimal position of operating a vehicle. Cheeseburger guy is going to be more likely to cause an accident than the hands-free mobile guy, but nonetheless everyone is picking on the latter and forgetting about the former.

A person having a hands-free mobile conversation isn't going to be listening to the radio, isn't likely to be chatting with other occupants, isn't likely to be eating a cheeseburger, etc.. It isn't an additional distraction, it's just a different one. In many cases a smaller distraction relative to other activities that no one seems to give a second thought to.

just dont

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not answer or use the phone while driving.

Sorry whatever you need to talk about can wait. Just like before I carried the little bugger around with me.

'what if it is an emergency'?! And I will do what exactly in my car 30 miles away from you?

Re:just dont

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. You don't need to use the phone. Nobody is forcing you. To provide a counterpoint, I put my bluetooth headset on my ear when I get in the car. I can answer the phone by a tap on the headset. (Years ago, I used to answer the physical phone and hold it up - this was bad, and not as safe - I could tell I was not as safe a driver that way). My house is indeed 38 miles away. But that doesn't mean everything is. "Your dad is in the hospital, come quick" would mean I should drive in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT direction instead of blithely driving home and then having to reverse myself when I get there. Even a "pickup some food for yourself on the way home, we won't be here to eat with you" saves me quite a bit of time. Honestly having done this both ways (hand held and hands free), I don't care what the studies show for the general case. When I am in the driver seat it is a specific case - that doesn't always follow the general. While some people may be distracted by a voice in their ear as much as they are by actually holding the phone, not everyone is.

Re:just dont

[YrWrstNtmr]

Screw you.
Drive the car. No one cares if you have to go back out and pick up that special thing from the grocery store. Coordinate that before you get in the car..
Drive the goddamn car.

But, no...you're a special snowflake that can do all of it at once, perfectly and all the time.
Hint...no, you can't. You're just a flake.

Re:just dont

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your dad is in the hospital, come quick"
And you would do what exactly when you got there? Stand around and be worried? It makes 0 difference. Does this happen often? Oh it hasnt? Hmm. Exactly why are you putting everyone's lives in danger again?

"pickup some food for yourself on the way home, we won't be here to eat with you"
Which means you wasted a whole 15-20 mins OH THE HUMANITY!!!! Your stomach may actually growl.

While some people may be distracted by a voice in their ear as much as they are by actually holding the phone, not everyone is.
You are self selecting your delusion in which the only judge of your behavior is you. Dont think so? You are now aware of your eyes when you talk. Many people look up and left/right when they are talking. That means you took your eyes off the road.

You are putting others around you in danger. But you are special and above average driver. Just like everyone else before they go over the line and front end someone.

just dont...

Re:just dont

[Anonymous Coward]

I text and talk on my phone while driving and have done this for years with no issues. If I was getting into accidents my insurance would go up and force me to change my behavior. How is this any different from speeding? Some people can handle speeding and some people can't, the laws are written for those who can't.

Re:just dont

[dgatwood]

Screw you.
Drive the car. No one cares if you have to go back out and pick up that special thing from the grocery store. Coordinate that before you get in the car.

Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. The distance driven is a major contributing factor towards getting in a car wreck. When something comes up at the last minute, if you change directions to take a more optimal path immediately (as opposed to going all the way home and then going back out), you not only reduce your exposure to accidents by driving fewer miles, but also reduce the odds of other people getting into wrecks by having fewer cars on the road for some portion of your total drive time.

Thus, statistically speaking, if taking a short phone call or glancing down at a text message can save just a few extra minutes of driving, chances are you've made the roads safer by taking that call or reading that text message, not the other way around. Sending a text message, on the other hand, is a different story, because of the cognitive load involved, but that's really a separate issue.

Re:just dont

[Anonymous Coward]

But, no...you're a special snowflake that can do all of it at once, perfectly and all the time.
Hint...no, you can't. You're just a flake.

You're right. Clearly everyone has the same abilities. If there is something that one person in the world can't do, then nobody can do it. That is the argument here, right?

Re:just dont

[martas]

Holy bad math batman! You are making a quantitative comparison without actually having quantities. Suppose the average phone call/text message saves 1 mile of driving; the average chance of an accident per 1 mile driven is 1 in 100,000; and the average chance of accident due to taking a call/reading a text is 1 in 10,000. Then by answering a call, one increases the chances of an accident 10x. I have no idea how close to reality those numbers are, but neither do you.

Re:just dont

[Anonymous Coward]

Unscrew you . . . there, fixed that.

Re:just dont

[dgatwood]

Actually, I do know how close to reality those numbers are. They're not close at all. The odds of an fatal accident are less than 1.3 per 100 million miles traveled, and the odds of any accident are about 231 per 100 million miles. So you're off by more than a factor of 4 in your accident rate per mile. And even though there's a lot of correlative "evidence" that suggests cell phones cause a lot of accidents, there's much stronger evidence suggesting that this is not, in fact, the case. In fact, the numbers actually suggest that the opposite may be true—that increased cell phone use has reduced the rate of accidents.

Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.

Now this is decidedly not the case for teenage drivers. They still suck at driving, and as a result, it is quite possible that the extra risk from reading that text will be greater than the reduced risk from the extra miles. We shouldn't allow teens to use cell phones while driving for the same reason that we don't allow them to drive with other kids in the car—every little distraction is a problem if you lack the driving experience to do it instinctually. But the numbers strongly suggest that such prohibitions are completely ineffectual when applied to the population as a whole. (Although that's about the California law, similar studies have been done in other states that have passed anti-phone laws, and AFAIK, they've all consistently shown that such laws have no statistically significant effect on accident or fatality rates. None.)

In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth. Glancing at a cell phone and reading a short message is no more dangerous than glancing down at the radio or the air conditioner or any of the other random things in your car that you might look at for two or three seconds. As risk factors go, it is almost completely lost in the noise.

What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time. The total risk requires you to multiply that risk times only the portion of your trip that it affects. Even if reading that text made you 100x more likely to have a wreck during those three seconds out of a twenty minute trip, the total risk averaged over the trip as a whole would still be somewhere around a 25% total increase. By contrast, if not taking that call means that you drive 30% more miles, the odds of you being of an accident increase by 30%, because accident rates are roughly linear in the number of miles driven. And I'm not convinced for one minute that it makes you 100x more likely to have a wreck, because for the overwhelming majority of those 3-second periods, there will be nothing happening in front of you whatsoever. I'm not convinced that you're even 10x more likely.

But suppose we go with your numbers and assume that your odds of an accident per mile is 1 in 100,000, and skimming a text gives you a whopping 1 in 10,000 chance of a wreck. That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.

Re:just dont

[Barsteward]

Congratulations, you win the "dumbass" award. look forward to seeing you in the Darwin Awards.

Re:just dont

[martas]

Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.

Which, if true, would mean that if people didn't use cell phones while driving, the accident rate could be an unknown amount lower than it is.

In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth.

Your numbers provided zero evidence to support that claim. At best, the numbers suggest that current strategies for reducing cell phone usage don't reduce accidents. This might just mean that instead of lowering the number of cell phone users, the laws make it more likely for people to hide their phones on their laps while driving, making them even more distracted.

What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time.

I wasn't "fundamentally missing" anything, I was making an assumption - not intended to be realistic - to illustrate why your original argument, being devoid of any evidence, was meaningless.

That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.

Assuming every text people get is saving them ten miles of driving on average!? There is no way in hell that is anywhere close to realistic. The vast majority of calls or texts people get have absolutely nothing to do with driving. Now, if you have an agreement with, say, your spouse to only call you during your errand if something has changed, and you only take calls/texts from them and nobody else, then there is a possibility that overall you are reducing risk. But that's a fairly niche scenario.

Calling Captain Obvious

[daveschroeder]

...and so do kids, passengers, arguments, the radio, the A/C controls, and anything else that takes your visual or mental attention away from the road in front of you.

This is surprising, how, exactly? Siri and similar are a hell of a lot better than texting and otherwise using your smart device in the normal, "non voice controlled" way.

Re:Calling Captain Obvious

[ArcadeMan]

The answer is clear, then. Ban A/C controls, radio, passengers and kids!

Re:Calling Captain Obvious

[OzPeter]

The answer is clear, then. Ban A/C controls, radio, passengers and kids!

You are totally skirting around the correct solution. In 100% of crashes, the common element among all of them is the driver. Ban the driver and you solve the problem of driver distracted crashes.

Re:Calling Captain Obvious

[ArcadeMan]

I think you're not seeing the whole picture here. In 100% of the crashes, physics are involved. I say go to the source and ban physics!

Re:Calling Captain Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the existence of largely unregulated amateur drivers is crazy. It's a weird artefact of a relatively short era of human history and it will go away. Probably in the next 20-30 years. Fifty years ago the car was _freedom_. Job number one for a teenager who wanted to escape was to buy a car, beg, borrow, scrimp and save to get themselves a license and something with four wheels. Today they want a phone. We can escape without going _anywhere_ that's what the Internet did to the car.

Automation means we can make driving non-essential for most people within 10 years. Those living off the beaten track or who need specialist vehicles may have to wait a little longer, but once driving isn't essential more and more people will choose not to learn in the first place. Trucks and taxis will go automated almost as soon as the technology is affordable. For them the driver is a huge cost drain, to be eliminated as soon as practical. That just leaves the existing "grandfathered" amateur license holders who qualified back when driving was something everybody did.

With the car no longer at the romantic core of people's lives, we can fix the safety hazard by banning amateur driving. At first it's just a matter of raising standards. Drivers are required to re-certify with a $100 hour-long practical test every 10 years. Then it's every five years with mandatory driver education attendance. Then it's a $500 day-long test once a year. Soon only a handful of professional drivers are still bothering and they, unlike you or I, are really good because that's what they do for a living, not something they do while tired and just trying to get home.

Re:Calling Captain Obvious

[kheldan]

Ban the driver

No. Fuck you, asshole. So-called 'driverless cars' aren't even an actual reality yet, and there's already assholes like you chomping at the bit to take away yet another of our freedoms: Drive ourselves somewhere. I do not want my driviing privilege taken away from me because some assholes can't be bothered to be competent drivers! Go after the bad drivers and get them off the roads; leave the rest of us alone!

Re:Calling Captain Obvious

[Nethemas the Great]

Are you from Texas?

Re:Calling Captain Obvious

[Nethemas the Great]

I wonder if you might be prone to road rage...

My Car integration is simple

[ripvlan]

Yes - I can understand this - it is exactly my experience. I'm not type A so I am capable of putting the phone down. Of course I find Siri is often less than useful. Yes it will make a call for me, or read/dictate my texts. But that's about it. It ain't no Google search (damit man, I have questions and need answers). I rarely make calls from my car - but when I do I ask Siri who usually responds.... "Sorry - I can't do that right now!" [grrrr]

I rented a newer car that had a touchscreen system for all adjustments. Temp, air ducts, radio. I spent more time with eyes on the screen than looking out the window. I really my physical round knobs in my car - just twist to an approximate position without looking. I thought we learned our lessons back in the 90' with stereos and push button volume controls - ooh those irked me (too loud...down down down down down down....). And Honda - that big knob in the center of the dash looks important and useful - like a big volume control or fan speed selector. But noooo - it's a friggen menu selector.

What do I do in my car? Listen to music. And this is where my car iPhone integration kit is handy - simple old school push buttons on the radio. These are integrated to playlists from my phone. Plain and simple. Button 1 is rock, 2 is softer, 3 podcasts, 4 kids, 5 surprise me. Or Pandora via a tap before I start driving. I've used newer ones in more modern cars that can itemize the choices via USB.

It all worked beautifully until...iOS8

Re:My Car integration is simple

[Gaygirlie]

I've been trying to tell the same thing: physical knobs and buttons don't randomly change place and they can be felt with your fingers even when your eyes are elsewhere. Not so with touchscreens. Of course, there are various kinds of attempts at providing haptic feedback, but that really only means that you'll know that your touch was registered, not where it was registered nor does it help you place your finger at the right spot in any way. It's just kind of braindead to push touchscreens where they don't belong, but people generally seem to like flashy stuff, regardless of how useful it actually ends up being, and companies are all too eager to give people exactly that. Urgh.

Re:My Car integration is simple

[ArcadeMan]

PARIS: Look, we could spend weeks trying to solve this, but we've got a ticking clock. Engines are working, weapons systems are online. I say we launch now and hope for the best.
TUVOK: Mister Paris, that is perhaps the most illogical statement you've ever made. Unless we find a way to reconfigure the structural integrity field the hull will incur microfractures during descent.
PARIS: Microfractures, Tuvok. Doesn't necessarily mean we'll have a hull breach.
TUVOK: And if we do, I suppose these useless design elements from your Captain Proton scenario will compensate for the problem.
PARIS: Hey, every one of these knobs and levers is fully functional.
TUVOK: And completely superfluous.
PARIS: Maybe to you. I am tired of tapping panels. For once, I want controls that let me actually feel the ship I'm piloting.

Re:My Car integration is simple

[geekoid]

Thank you for reminding my how stupid and anti star trek that show was.

Re:My Car integration is simple

[onkelonkel]

I once had a ride on an small airplane, and every control knob had a different shape so they could be identified by touch. I think the knob that put the wheels down was actually shaped like a small tire with treads and all. The throttle was a round ball (does balls to the wall come from that?) The flap control was shaped like a little flap. It made a lot of sense. Pretty hard to do that with a touch screen.

Re:My Car integration is simple

[Anne Thwacks]

Pretty hard to do that with a touch screen.

Its several years ago, I am sure, that we heard of touch screens with "pixels" that vibrated to give a touchable image. I believe one used piezo pixels, and the other had pulsating voltages, but I am not certain of either.

I believe Microsoft bought one of the (at least two) competing technologies. Given the potential for keyboards you can actually feel, and porn apps, I am surprised the technology is not already in high end phones.

More use in a touch screen than a lot of other junk we have - like "3D" you can't feel, that requires your eyes to be focussed at a different distance from your attention!

As one of the few people here...

[YrWrstNtmr]

....who has been on the receiving end of a crash with a phone involved driver....hang up and drive.

There is nothing so important that you cannot pull over and call/text. Nothing. Period.

In my case, she had a full 10 seconds of red light before impact. 10 seconds at 60mph = almost 3 football fields of not looking out the window.
Hanging upside down from the seatbelt, covered in broken glass, was not how I expected to spend my lunch hour.

Drive the damn car. Talk later.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Was eating upside down difficult? We were doing that as kids when we were playing astronauts. ;-)

Re:As one of the few people here...

[YrWrstNtmr]

I kind of missed out eating lunch that day.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[OzPeter]

..
In my case, she had a full 10 seconds of red light before impact.

Sorry for you accident.

But to go off on a tangent/rant, its a regular occurrence (easily 3 or 4 times year) for me to be facing a green light and have someone come through against the red. Yet I never see any of those people on the phone .. they are just really really bad drivers and are accidents waiting to happen.

To me the obvious solution is red light cameras that can deliver some feedback to such idiots by slapping them with a fine before they hit someone. And while I am well aware of the "red-light-camera-as-free-money" scams, opponents of red light cameras never seem to offer alternatives that would help control these dangerous idiots.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[geekoid]

Yes, that never, ever, happened before cell phones.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[YrWrstNtmr]

A couple of seconds of red light? Sure, I've seen that too.
A full 10 seconds of facing a red light? Far more rare, absent full distraction from something. In this case, it was known and admitted that it was the phone/texting.

Red light cameras are, in theory, a good idea. But it always gets screwed up between the politician and the company supplying it.
Ticket revenue split between the city and the camera company. So the controlling parties adjust the settings to provide 'more revenue'....more tickets. Not more safety, more revenue. Add to that the known bribes to the local politician to get them installed in the first place.

I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[jabuzz]

My only beef with red light cameras is the only driving offence I have is going though a red light so an ambulance barrelling down the road behind me with blues and twos going would not have too slow down ended up with me having a fine and points on my license. Won't be doing that again.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[wbtittle]

In Orlando, Florida, before cell phones and texting were a problem at all (1992), I used to watch myself go through a dark yellow light and then watch the next 8 cars go through after me. It was so bad that Red lights were almost viewed as green lights because the people on the cross street had to wait for all the people going through red lights before starting, which was just about when their red light started.

Bad driving is everywhere. It doesn't need texting to make it worse. It was already worse.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone out there missing the memo, distracted driving laws are being put in place because it's as dangerous as drunk driving. Around here, texting-while-driving accidents are far above alcohol related ones. The hope is that the laws and awareness campaigns will get everyone to stop thinking that it's all for someone else and put the phone away.

And dear /., I think it's pretty low of you to be making fun of a car accident victim. Let's try to spend more time on the should-be-simple NFC app that turns your ringer off when you're in the driver's seat with the ignition on, and less time honing our teenaged fantasy that technology==good.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[OzPeter]

A couple of seconds of red light? Sure, I've seen that too.

Thats my point. That should be the rare event, not the common event. Ideally 10 seconds should be nonexistent. But with no feedback loop controlling bad drivers, the "couple or seconds" gets accepted as the norm.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Right. If you observe any moderately busy intersection, every light change you will see a couple of people sneak through after the red. Idiots. But slow speed idiots.
But 10 seconds later at 60MPH? Not unless they were actually asleep or totally distracted.

In this persons case, it was already illegal for her to be on the phone, either talking or texting. In my state, it is/was illegal to use any communication device if you are under 18. So 'a law' or red light camera would have made no difference, because she did not care. It was a usual, every day thing to do.
Until she ate the air bag.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In that case, it wasn't much of a lunch hour.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must live here in Houston.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not good at time management then. Just because you're upside down that's no reason to not eat.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Anonymous Coward]

My rule is that if I'm too close to the light to stop without throwing out my transmission, I'm not stopping. Regardless of what happens, it's going to be thousands of dollars of repairs if I stop and fuck my transmission, or I hit someone. I'm not a shit enough driver to hit someone or run through a red light if someone is in my vicinity anyway but sorry, if traffic is very light and the traffic lights and speed limits are placed in shitty conjunction, I'm not ruining my car to follow a law when there isn't even a single person at the intersection except me.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[OzPeter]

It was a usual, every day thing to do.

You just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended her lucky streak. I posit that that particular red light was not the first one that she had run, and that red light cameras could have caught her actions sooner and punished just her and not you. On the other hand they would have done nothing if it was a first the offense for her. But on the third hand .. if it was well known in the first place that you get severely punished for running red lights and you will be caught, then there would have been less of a chance for even her first offense.

BTW when I said I see people running red lights , I was discounting the ones that sneak through slowly. I'm talking about people running them at normal travel speed with no other traffic around. I am at the point in a lot of cases where I treat a light turning green as "lets just wait a moment and see if the idiots have already left the scene"

Re:As one of the few people here...

[PRMan]

Sounds like Orlando needed a couple more cops...

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Ichijo]

There is nothing so important that you cannot pull over and call/text. Nothing. Period.

That's illegal on freeways where pulling over is only allowed for emergencies.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Anonymous Coward]

...who has been on the receiving end of a crash with a phone involved driver....hang up and drive.

Sorry, but just on numbers, my anecdotal experience of the problem beats your anecdotal experience.

1. I was stopped at a stop sign. I looked in the mirror and saw a car full of high school students and the driver looking at his friends, not the road. Then I saw the look on his face as he saw that I was stopped and there was no way that he could stop quickly enough to avoid my car. All I could do was steer my car so the impact wouldn't push my car into the car ahead of me. No mobile phones involved.

2. I was driving home on a back road and encountered a car driving about 10-15 mph under the 50 mph limit. After several minutes of this, we got to a straight section of road where it was safe to pass. As I was passing the car, with no indication that it intended to do so, it turned left into the path of my car. On impact, my car spun into the ditch and the other car completed the turn into a driveway. After I exited my car, I approached the other driver as he exited his car. He was surprised to see someone because he had not even realized that our cars had collided. He had been driving slowly trying to find the driveway to his friend's house. No mobile phones involved.

3. I was driving in the city and came to a yield. A car was approaching on the non-yield side of the junction, so I yielded. The car behind mine didn't. It was a hard hit. I was able to drive the remains of my car out of the intersection. We exchanged information, took pictures of each other's cars, then the other driver took off. She was already late before she hit my car. No mobile phones involved (other than to take photos of the aftermath).

People should be attentive to their driving. Period. If they can do it while juggling chain saws, I don't have a problem with that. However, some people can barely walk and chew gum at the same time. Those people should probably not use mobile phones while driving.

The current obsession with mobile phone use while driving is bizarre. There are more distractions that create more risk that are ignored. And, if when I look at the potential for risk of thousands of independently controlled vehicles with drivers of varying skills, it is amazing to me that accidents don't happen more often.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[operagost]

Where do you pull over and call when there is no shoulder? On on a limited-access highway, where non-emergency stops are prohibited?

I hope you recognize that yours was an extreme case.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[operagost]

That's exactly how I would have put it to the judge in traffic court. "Moving out of the way seemed like the safest action. But don't worry, I won't do it again. Hopefully, no one's life depends on those few seconds."

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Anonymous Coward]

opponents of red light cameras never seem to offer alternatives that would help control these dangerous idiots

Red light camera connected to a spring-loaded spike strip further ahead. Jump the red and have your car disabled for the safety of others. No fine so not red-light-camera-as-free-money, but still in effect fining them (cost of repair) while getting the idiot off of the road.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[slimjim8094]

As a guy who actually drives an ambulance, please please *please* don't go through a red light. We have a siren that allows us to break traffic laws, and warns other vehicles that they need to do something unusual. In fact, there's a school of thought in emergency vehicle operation that says that you really shouldn't use the lights and siren at all, since some percentage of people will do something stupid in their presence and some percentage of those will get hurt or worse. And those few seconds just aren't that important - minutes, sure, but it's rare that the siren saves minutes. I try to do most of my driving without the siren, and only use it to make someone pull off to the side or break a traffic law (e.g., running a red light) that requires its use - but if traffic is moving, there's really no need (and using it is poor driving).

If some emergency vehicle is right behind you with the sirens blaring and you're at a red light, flip him off and stay put until the light changes. He can and should turn off the siren so as to not induce people to do something stupid. It would have been even better to have not gotten himself stuck in the first place, since he's allowed to go into opposing traffic so as to not require extraordinary measures of the other drivers.

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Barsteward]

well, yellow is the "go faster" light....

Re:As one of the few people here...

[Barsteward]

problem is that no-one wants to be the person holding up the ambulance, its just instinctive to get out of the way

On Distractions

[i.kazmi]

Isn't speaking to passengers a distraction too? If a conversation with a passenger starts to get too heated, there's no way to hang up on them.

Re:On Distractions

[Gaygirlie]

Isn't speaking to passengers a distraction too? If a conversation with a passenger starts to get too heated, there's no way to hang up on them.

Around here driving-schools and the books and whatnot teach you to simply tell any passengers to let you focus on driving if it feels distracting to you. You can always argue or chat or whatever when the car isn't moving anymore. Of course, just telling them to quiet down may not always work, but at least it's acknowledged that it can be a serious distraction.

Re:On Distractions

[technomom]

Most passengers aren't half-deaf, mostly unhelpful bitches like Siri.

Re:On Distractions

[ArcadeMan]

Passengers are present in the car with you and are aware of the surrounding conditions. Someone on the phone is not.

Re:On Distractions

[ArcadeMan]

The nearest beach is 528 miles east. - Siri

Re:On Distractions

[Anonymous Coward]

Passengers are present in the car with you and are aware of the surrounding conditions.

Really ?

I guess you are to old to think back to yourself as a young kid, and not old enough to have had any of your own.

Re:On Distractions

[ArcadeMan]

I said passengers, not kids. Kids are an entirely different life form.

Re:On Distractions

[91degrees]

Good question.

Considering research suggests that mobile phones are more distracting than passengers, it's probably overstepping to ban talking to passengers. It's also a lot harder to do.

Waiting till driverless cars

[gurps_npc]

These kinds of things won't be fixed until they start selling driver-less cars.

People that are terrified of Ebola, terrorists, vaccines, etc. will quite willingly smoke, drive distracted, and cross subway tracks.

Siri is distracting because it only works 50%

[technomom]

I wonder how much of this is distraction and how much of this is driver rage at Siri not understanding what the driver is asking or responding, as it does in most cases, with "Sorry, I can't do that".

Will they also ban passengers?

[popo]

Because I'm pretty sure that talking to one's significant other is equally distracting.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[kenshin33]

fiddeling with the radio is distracting too. smoking is potentially more dangerous (had one episode, never smoked again in the car, no need for a law)

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[Mr D from 63]

Driving While Infuriated?

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[91degrees]

According at least one study it's not. Also it's harder to ban passengers than phones, and laws need to take practicality into account.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually its safer, since your passengers will typically start screaming when you screw up.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radios usually have specific buttons and require much less thought when changing channels than dealing with Siri or making sure GPS is set to the correct location.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[kenshin33]

have you seen the latest models?
with that said, it is not the distraction per say, it is the timing of the distraction that is the problem.
On a long, empty, straight stretch of a highway, during a sunny day, that is usually no problem.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[sexconker]

Don't forget bees. You ever get a bee in the car when you're driving? There ought to be a law.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it turns out that people that are next to you in the car often can understand when those moments where you need care happen. So they will shut up during those moments. People on the phone can't know when you have to take care during driving and can't be distracted.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[kenshin33]

never a bee (knocking on wood). Flies/Mosquitos? yeah a pain in the ass !!!

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there does need to be a law because you were apparently too stupid to realize that smoking while driving could be dangerous. That should be common sense. The law should increase requirements to get and keep a drivers license and police should enforce the existing distracted driving laws (police dash cams would help them with that).

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an ex-smoker the only problem I ever had while driving was accidentally dropping a lit cigarette. At that point you have to remain calm and ask yourself if you'd rather cause an accident or get a small burn in your carpet (or even clothes if you're unfortunate enough to drop it there). Then you pull over as soon as you safely can and deal with it. In 30 years of fairly heavy smoking I only ever remember dropping 1 lit cigarette.

Lighting a cigarette shouldn't require you to take your eyes off the road for more than a split second, if that. (and only to make sure your lighter and tip of cigarette meet).

You've apparently never been a pack or 2 a day smoker who has driven 4-5 hours at a stretch.

If you're fumbling around looking for the cigarette you dropped or looking for the pack of cigarettes you have in the glove box then you deserve a distracted driving ticket.

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[kenshin33]

you sure seem to have non reading sense at all!

Re:Will they also ban passengers?

[kenshin33]

If you're fumbling around looking for the cigarette you dropped or looking for the pack of cigarettes you have in the glove box, especially, when it is crowded , then you deserve a distracted driving ticket.

With that emphasis added,
The only incident I had was like you said, dropped a lite cigarette, stopped on the next corner and throw it away. That was just the drop that spilled the glass. I stopped smoking in the car since then.
As I said above, usually, it is not much the "insert any action" that is the problem, it is the timing of said action. Drivers need to know when to do and when to not do! with the obligation of driving courses (where I live anyways) that could be an opportunity to educate new drivers in that sense, and stop the moral superiority ground bullshit approach that we have now. if the end goal is safe driving and not ticket's cash that is.

or not

[geekoid]

"noting that the research did not document that cognitive distraction leads to crashes. Conversely, physical activities, such as reaching for a phone, texting or reading emails while driving do create distractions that cause collisions."

Why can't anybody do a good study on this? must studies start based on a study that came to it's numbers just by assumption, not actual data.
Other studies don't take into account what is too much distraction., just that there was a distraction.
They don't take into account how 'deep' the distraction is' That don't baseline against normal driving; which is also full of distraction, they don't take into account the fact that people aren't even really paying attention after about 11 minutes.Even tho' they thing they are paying attention.

It's insane.

Beta link

[steveg]

Is anyone else irritated by an explicit link to the beta site in this summary? You can edit 'tech-beta.slashdot.org' to be just 'tech.slashdot.org' and they do still offer the link back to the real site once you get there, but it's still annoying.

Maybe the solution is "just don't click on links while on Slashdot." That's a grand old tradition here anyway, I guess.

Ponch vs Siri

[l0ungeb0y]

Siri, as usual was giving me confusing and last second directions saying "Turn Left", in a very confusing series of intersections in Oakland where it looked like she was wrong (and was of course). However, while looking around trying to read street signs, the light turned red just as I got to the intersection, and I was still at about 40mph, after having just got off the Freeway. So, I figured it would be safer to run the light than slam on the brakes and risk stopping in the middle of the intersection. Immediately I saw flashing red lights, I pulled over and apologized to the CHP Officer while handing him my papers, explaining the situation with Siri and the light etc and you know what? He came back, handed me back my papers and said he decided to give me a break on the ticket and let me go. Thanks Ponch! Seems the California Highway Patrol is all to familiar with how much a distraction Siri can be. And what the fuck is up with her 10 mile warning! Two mile I can understand, but 10? Fucking annoying.

Re:Ponch vs Siri

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your lights go direct from green to red, or did you ignore the amber stage? Not trolling - if the former then you really need to petition for sensible stop lights. If the latter, well, you weren't paying enough attention (sorry).

Whats the difference between talking to a person

[nhat11]

next to you than? Does talking to people in the back seat cause more a chance of crashing too?

Correlation !

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, stay out of my lane, you f****

Ponder this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Tech devices distracting? Or an increase in personal ignorance?

I look everywhere and wonder; are we still even evolving?

Re:Ponder this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooooo deeeply poooonderiiiiing.....

why you dont understand how evolution works

But... Utah.

[swerk]

To be fair, conducting a study about distracted driving in Utah is like hosting a philosophical debate in the mosh pit of a Gwar concert. It can be done, but the noise is going to be overwhelming.

I lived and drove there for ten years, which taught me fear as I have never known. Utah drivers don't need any help being terrible, but they welcome it anyway.

Just Siri?

[XxtraLarGe]

I didn't see any mention of Cortana or Google Now. Doesn't seem like a very good study if it excludes those. As a consumer, I'd like to know if any voice recognition performed a lot better during driving than the others. Also, I wonder how distracted they were having gear strapped to their heads?

A defense against rear-end collisions

[TigerPlish]

I've had two "love taps" from behind, one by a tailgater in dense traffic, one by a lady putting on makeup while driving.

Then I got rear-ended by some punk teen in his hopped-up Tacoma with a big tacky add-on tach, gauges on the a-pillar, etc. That impact lifted the rear of my Miata and twisted her lengthwise. Instant kill. I was ok, the car died protecting me. It was a fun 10 years that I had that car, and I still miss her.

So now, whenever I stop at a light or stopsign, or when in traffic which is slowing down, I keep an eye on the rear view mirror. If I see an approaching car and I think they're not stopping -- or if I actually *see* them working the phone, I flash my brakelights and honk the horn lots. Saved me already once, for-sure. Guy looks up and the nose went down, he was hard on the brakes. Then he looks up, as if saying "What?!"

Re:A defense against rear-end collisions

[OzPeter]

So now, whenever I stop at a light or stopsign, or when in traffic which is slowing down, I keep an eye on the rear view mirror.

That wouldn't have worked in my case. I stopped in traffic, the car behind me stopped, the car behind them stopped (and that car had a trailer) . Then a fourth car rear-ended the car with the trailer, who was pushed into the next car, which was pushed into me. That impact broke my rear axle and put my car off the road. My only saving grace was that I had left enough room ahead of me so that I wasn't pushed into the car ahead of me.

But yeah .. keeping an eye out behind you and leaving an escape route in front of you is good, basic defensive driving.

Re:A defense against rear-end collisions

[TigerPlish]

You're the only other person I've heard of that does this. I would like to think it's more widespread than I think -- but I fear it isn't widespread at all.

People look at me weird when I tell them that I do this.

Re:A defense against rear-end collisions

[OzPeter]

You're the only other person I've heard of that does this.

I think it comes from having ridden motorcycles and knowing that certain death was only moments away unless I was fully aware of my surroundings and in control of my actions.

For example I also don't trust mirrors and turn my head to look where I am about to change lanes to.

Re:A defense against rear-end collisions

[PRMan]

I was on vacation and the idiot in front of me decides to stop in the middle of a highway and do a u-turn to go back to the previous town. I slammed on the brakes hard as did the person behind me. I could see that the person behind THEM was not going to stop. The instant they hit I edged forward as close to idiot's bumper as I could without hitting him. I escaped the crash by an inch.

You absolutely should watch for people behind you who aren't going to stop and take any evasive maneuvers that you can.

Re:Whats the difference between talking to a perso

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't capable of perceiving the difference in cognitive effect between a conversation on the phone and a conversation in person, then you truly are the kind of idiot that would write "than" above and not realize why it's incorrect.

You are using significantly more of your brain to process a cell phone conversation than you are a face-to-face conversation. And I'm not providing a citation, because there are studies all over the web and your own personal experience should suffice.

Screaming 3 year olds

[laughingskeptic]

are orders of magnitude more distracting than these device related distractions. Are we going to ban children in cars next?

Re:Screaming 3 year olds

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the children.

Fuck Autonomous Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you assume that there are 40,000 careless drivers out there and zero careless pedestrians?

duh

[Anonymous Coward]

It is known.

Active vs Passive "Distractions"

[ossuary]

I think the whole driving while "distracted" issue boils down to the type of distraction. My two cents... ACTIVE A phone call is an active engagement. You talk. The other person then talks. You are expecting feedback, so part of your brain is tuning in to receive that potential incoming response, therefore causing some people to not focus on other activities (such as driving). Another example would be texting. You get a text. You actively look at it, then respond back. PASSIVE A horrible song comes on the radio. You slightly lean forward and turn a physical knob or physical button to change the channel. You are not expecting further input form the radio. You just want it off of what is on there now. Another example would be turning the heater on/off. You just lean over, grab a dial, and turn it down. You are not expecting feedback from the heater other than for it to get hotter/colder. No unexpected feedback. Another example would be eating a hamburger. You have the hamburger in one hand and driving with the other. No need to look down at the hamburger or listen to the hamburger, it just is passively being eaten. Talking to another person IN THE SAME CAR could also be seen as passive. You are not trying to dial someone. You are not trying to hit a button to respond. You are just opening your mouth and talking. Those same systems that allow you to talk are not tied up with hand-eye coordination of driving. To counter that, if you have two kids in the back seat and they are fighting causing you to look up into the mirror while you talk, then that would switch to active and not passive.

Re:just don't act like a fuckin' crybaby

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you can't walk a chew gum at the same time doesn't mean that it can't be done. You shouldn't blindly believe every study you read.

Yes, I believe these things can be distracting to drivers. I believe they are about as distracting as changing the radio station, or turning the air-conditioning on to defog your windows. Should we outlaw them in our cars?

One big distraction that will never be outlawed:

[davidwr]

Kids in the back seat begging for attention.

I don't know how I made it through childhood without my parents having a wreck every day.

I have to admit there is some validity to this

[wcrowe]

At first I thought, "No way! My hands-free function on my car is great, and far less distracting." Then I remember the frustrations I had when I first started using it. This is an example of the type of "conversation" I would have:

Car: "Voice command please."
Me:"Call Marty Klugman"
Car: "Calling Mary Kliegleman. Say yes or no."
Me:"No"
Car: "Voice command please"
Me:"Call Mar-ty Klug-man!"
Car: "Calling Harry Chelphon. Say yes or no"
Me:"NO!" ...etc, etc, etc
The next thing I know I'm arguing; YELLING at my Car!

Yeah, that was distracting, and dangerous. I'm glad there was no other traffic around.

Re:I have to admit there is some validity to this

[siphonophore]

I'm in the same boat. I try to use google now, and >50% of "hands-free" interactions eventually require hands. Many times, voice control requires more looking at the phone because you have to watch it like a hawk to catch all the errors.

BMW does it right

[unencode200x]

I think BMW does it right. You hold a steering wheel button down for a moment and you have Siri with most functionality except things blocked during driving mode. Texting, Calls, appointments, notes, and music all work nicely. It's awesome, easy, and works.

The BMW speech recognition for the vehicle's functions works really well too. If you're busy you also have a live concierge to help with almost anything.

BMW's iDrive is amazing, it's engineered so that you rarely have to take your eyes off the road to operate it. BMW has a whole video and discussin about it. When you do have to look at the screen you can still see the road well. It was designed this way and has been refined over many years. I love it. For example each button has a slightly different shape and height right next to the wheel which you can even "click" with your wrist. They feel different so you build muscle memory right away.

Some of the others out there such as Ford, Lincoln, Toyota, Lexus, and more basically just tried to stick an iPad-like touch screen or Franken-mouse in the cabin that is confusing and distracting even if you read the manual and learn the ins and outs.

Mercedes has something that tries to be like iDrive but fails in so many ways. If you want examples ask. I had a 2014 Mercedes and was so disappointed with the day-to-day usability. The bullet points are there, but it's the little things that don't click.

I spent a lot of time with a lot of vehicles over the last few years as I've bought a few. BMW's tech and perhaps Audi's have always impressed me in how they are sophisticated, understated, and actually really useful. If it was made illegal I would argue against it.

Re:BMW does it right

[Lumpy]

the JVC aftermarket stereo in my wifes car works just like this. Except you press and hold the mute button on the steering wheel.

Re:BMW does it right

[Anonymous Coward]

BMW got it right after iDrive become profanity. They failed many times before getting a usable system. I agree it's now fantastic, but they had to deal with the pain of failure to get something that really works.

Flawed study with idiots at the wheel.

[Lumpy]

Current ios version with siri plugged into a charger. "hey siri, call home" works perfectly and I dont have to touch it.

What did they use? an iphone 3S for their study? I have more of an argument with my HTC ONE M8 trying to get freaking voice dialing to work. Android has utter crap for it's dialing capabilities and needs to be updated.

yes I carry and daily use an M8 and a 5C, so I know more about this than 90% of you.

correlation my ass

[PigleT]

Has anyone made a study of how much mobile usage in a car does NOT result in crashes?

I can guarantee that 100% of crashes involved oxygen, so we really must ban oxygen use in cars.

It should be pretty obvious that another missing, presumed unconsidered, dimension is people's ability to choose when they might reasonably use a mobile device whilst driving, and for how long.

just dont

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry whatever you need to talk about can wait.... And I will do what exactly in my car 30 miles away from you?....

Right.
"Honey, Ralphie got hit by a car and you're the closest person."
"Dad I just got raped. Can you come pick me up?"
"Son, this is dad. Your mother just had a heart attack. We need you at the hospital right now."
etc..
I'm sure all those things can wait... It would suck if anything got in the way of you living in the 1800's while you drive 30 miles in your horse carriage.

Thinking about your phone will cause genocide

[gelfling]

Even when you're home on the couch. And touching your phone has actually caused tsunamis. And Ebola.

a temporary period of distraction

[swell]

Put someone in a driving simulator and have them do something that might distract them. Does that make sense?

Put ME in a driving simulator and I'm already distracted. This isn't my car. The instruments aren't in the right places. It's confusing! And now you hand me a complicated device to use while 'driving'?

I had a bit of distraction the first few times I used the bluetooth system in my car. It could have been dangerous. The microphone was in the ceiling and the incoming via the radio, controls on the steering wheel and the phone was in my pocket. Dialing out was via voice commands. After a while it all seemed quite natural. Were these test subjects given time to adapt to the strange surroundings (like a week or two)?

Often when a study like this is done; to test the safety of distracting devices, or cigarettes or marijuana or alcohol ... there is a moral component. The people paying for the study want it to give certain results. Someone at AAA decided to do this- I wonder how old they are. It often seems to me that it is older people who fuss about such things (hey, I'm old but not fussy). In any case this particular study seems useless and biased.

Cherry picking.

[jklovanc]

I find it interesting that the article mentions three kind of distraction; cognitive distraction, visual distraction and physical distraction yet only measures cognitive distraction. I would think that the sum of all three distraction modes would be the definitive indicator as to what whether hand held or hands free is better. For example, I bet hand held has much higher visual and physical distraction numbers than hands free.

Yet another study to prove a theory rather than do a complete test.

How is it

[bferrell]

That pilots aren't distracted while communicating to ground controllers or flight deck crews? Are drivers similarly distracted by conversations with passengers?

I sense something amiss here

Child Endangerment?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about giving knifes to small children to play with? Or what about doing something that puts other adults at risk of death? Oh, and don't forget that death is harder to have today given how quickly they can hook you up to machines and keep somebody in a living hell while their family goes bankrupt.

MOST people doing foolish things or criminal things think "It won't happen to me" and it is just the reverse of the same false reasoning that makes gambling so popular-- people believe in the result they want rather than by believing in actual reality. Adults don't really act like the "adult" role model which is presented-- the term has zero real meaning outside of biology.

Minor punishments and reminders about proper behavior are needed for adults as with children; no difference. Furthermore positive feedback is more effective; however, we don't use that on adults in the realm of foolish behavior.

Re:Child Endangerment?

[lucien86]

If they based the rules of consent of Adult reasoning, some kids would be having sex at ten, others still wouldn't be allowed to at 50..

Re:Child Endangerment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see nothing wrong with giving a knife to a child. There are however a few conditions that must be met.

First off, don't start off with a sharp knife. If they want a sharp knife they have to learn how to sharpen it themselves.

Second, teach them to respect it for what it is. It is a tool and it is dangerous when misused.

My dad gave me my first knife when I was five. Did I cut myself with it? Of course I did, but it was very few times because I learned to respect it for what it was. I also learned a lot about responsibility from it. Kids don't magically learn how to be responsible when you hide everything in the world that is dangerous from them. If they don't learn some responsibility when they are young they will have none when they become teenagers and think they know everything.

Technophobia, or, What about in-car conversations?

[digibruce]

I'm sure there are studies of driver distraction when talking to someone who is in the car with them, but I've never seen those studies publicized or discussed. Common sense suggests that talking to someone sitting next to you, which includes normal human behaviors like looking at them for visual cues, has to be far more dangerous than hands-free cell calling. It's possible initiating a hands-free call is briefly more distracting than an in-car conversation, but that's a UI design issue.

City busses in Seattle have "don't talk to the driver while the bus is in motion" signs... for a good reason: they don't want you to distract the driver. So, why aren't there laws restricting conversations with people in your car? Beyond the practical impossibility of enforcing such a law, I suspect this has to do with technophobia, where "tech" is defined as something that seems new, rather than the tech we are already embedded in and used to. Cars themselves have gotten to the point of being assumed infrastructure, which is why we accept the general carnage on our roadways without question, while being up in arms about an increase in accidents due to mobile usage.

Another example of this kind of technophobia (or maybe technophilia in that it's what people want to hear about) is the publicity about studies of bacteria on cell phones. Sure, cell phones are rife with bacteria. But what about other things you have in your pocket, touch regularly, and would never think to clean, like keys and wallets? Keys have to be at least as bacteria-infested as your phone, and they haven't killed us off yet (except indirectly, through car crashes and sitting too much at the office). But I haven't seen any studies of general pocket-stuff bacteria publicized here or anywhere else. I suspect they exist, but where's the angst? Like the bacteria themselves, keys have been with us for a while now, so no angst.

Other commenters have noted that laws against cell phone use and texting do little to reduce usage. The advent of always-on remote connectivity to people and information is the killer app for self-driving cars. Young people instinctively realize driving cars get in the way of this connection, so they have stopped wanting to drive cars. Making a self-driving car is super hard/slow, but not much harder/slower than getting auto makers to do decent telematics UI design.

Tactile Controls

[Tuor]

I wish we could move toward pre-80's tactile controls. There certainly would be a lot more work creating limited interfaces that could work with them. It seems to me that it's less distracting when a function is a distinct control with some good feedback, like a switch or knob, than the controls that seem to line my dash these days.

It's probably not so much worth worrying about anymore. Automatic cruise control and braking are soon going to be the standard, and ease us into nearly automated driving. Computers don't get distracted.

I think BMW does it right

[unencode200x]

I think BMW does it right. You hold a steering wheel button down for a moment and you have Siri with most functionality except things blocked during driving mode. Texting, Calls, appointments, notes, and music all work nicely. It's awesome, easy, and works.

The BMW speech recognition for the vehicle's functions works really well too. If you're busy you also have a live concierge to help with almost anything.

BMW's iDrive is amazing, it's engineered so that you rarely have to take your eyes off the road to operate it. BMW has a whole video and discussion about it. When you do have to look at the screen you can still see the road well. It was designed this way and has been refined over many years. I love it. For example each button has a slightly different shape and height right next to the wheel which you can even "click" with your wrist. They feel different so you build muscle memory right away.

Some of the others out there such as Ford, Lincoln, Toyota, Lexus, and more basically just tried to stick an iPad-like touch screen or Franken-mouse in the cabin that is confusing and distracting even if you read the manual and learn the ins and outs.

Mercedes has something that tries to be like iDrive but fails in so many ways. If you want examples ask. I had a 2014 Mercedes and was so disappointed with the day-to-day usability. The bullet points are there, but it's the little things that don't click.

I spent a lot of time with a lot of vehicles over the last few years as I've bought a few. BMW's tech and perhaps Audi's have always impressed me in how they are sophisticated, understated, and actually really useful. If it was made illegal I would argue against it.

It's better his way

[pem]

Admit it -- you didn't expect the German Inquisition!

Burn the books!

[Anonymous Coward]

So we need to ban CB radios too then.

which is worse?

[jafac]

I could be a little bit distracted by using the navigation function on my smartphone, or I could be extremely distracted, and even make sudden maneuvers to catch turn-offs when I'm totally fucking lost because of incompetent or non-existent road signage.

I know who I'd rather share the road with.

Imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

...if these studies are done BEFORE these systems were installed in so many new cars. Imagine FORESIGHT!.