Slashdot Mirror


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.)

29 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. So.. by rockabilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With this revelation will the government allow phone use now?

    1. Re:So.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:So.. by Wootery · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3. Re:So.. by rockabilly · · Score: 2

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

    4. Re:So.. by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    5. Re:So.. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:So.. by Iniamyen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:So.. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:So.. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

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

      To be perfectly honest, I'm not at all surprised that drivers have trouble with bike lanes. They violate several basic principles of safe driving. For example, you're normally supposed to turn right from the rightmost driving lane, but (familiarity aside) the bike lane isn't large enough for a normal-sized vehicle to fit, so drivers don't think of it as a driving lane. It's more like an extension of the shoulder, or a sidewalk. In some (most?) areas you're supposed to "merge" into the bike lane before 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.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  2. Driverless Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  3. So does scratching your nose by cjonslashdot · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:So does scratching your nose by cjonslashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:So does scratching your nose by Morpeth · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    3. Re:So does scratching your nose by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Calling Captain Obvious by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

    1. Re:Calling Captain Obvious by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:Calling Captain Obvious by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  5. As one of the few people here... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

    ....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.

  6. Siri is distracting because it only works 50% by technomom · · Score: 2

    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".

  7. Re:just dont by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Will they also ban passengers? by popo · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Will they also ban passengers? by kenshin33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

    2. Re:Will they also ban passengers? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Driving While Infuriated?

  9. Re:latest update! by Kokuyo · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  10. Re:On Distractions by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    The nearest beach is 528 miles east. - Siri

  11. Re:latest update! by amalcolm · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  12. A defense against rear-end collisions by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:A defense against rear-end collisions by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:A defense against rear-end collisions by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?