SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Drivers commonly perform secondary tasks while behind the wheel to navigate or communicate with others, which has led to a significant increase in the number of injuries and fatalities attributed to distracted driving. Advances in wearable technology, particularly devices such as Google Glass, which feature voice control and head-up display (HUD) functionalities, raise questions about how these devices might impact driver attention when used in vehicles. New human factors/ergonomics research examines how these interface characteristics can have a deleterious effect on safety.
In their Human Factors article, "Driving While Interacting With Google Glass: Investigating the Combined Effect of Head-Up Display and Hands-Free Input on Driving Safety and Multitask Performance," authors Kathryn Tippey, Elayaraj Sivaraj, and Thomas Ferris observed the performance of 24 participants in a driving simulator. The participants engaged in four texting-while-driving tasks: baseline (driving only), and driving plus reading and responding to text messages via (a) a smartphone keyboard, (b) a smartphone voice-to text system, and (c) Google Glass' voice-to-text system using HUD.
The authors found that driving performance degraded regardless of secondary texting task type, but manual entry led to slower reaction times and significantly more eyes-off-road glances than voice-to-text input using both smartphones and Google Glass. Glass' HUD function required only a change in eye direction to read and respond to text messages, rather than the more disruptive change in head and body posture associated with smartphones. Participants also reported that Glass was easier to use and interfered less with driving than did the other devices tested.
IOW, wait until you're in a self-driving car before you mix texting and driving.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @08:59PM
There is a learning and comfort period to all of these.
Familiarity with the tool and familiarity with the road are going to have major impacts on this as well as general comfort level.}
I can knock out an entire conversation while parking, err driving on the 101 South on my way to work at 8 AM.
On Wednesdays I get more work done on my way to work than I do in the office all day long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @09:15PM (1 child)
What about the dip shits who insist on making youtube videos while they are driving? How/why did that ever become a "thing"?
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday April 15 2017, @07:44AM
To me, that would be roughly equivalent to having a conversation with a passenger while driving. The occupants of the car have the ability to shut up if the driving task needs extra attention.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @09:28PM (6 children)
I don't text while driving, because it's obviously very stupid. That being said, sometimes I'm fully stopped at a traffic intersection, waiting for the green light, far back in the part of a long line of cars which won't start moving for 30 seconds after the light does turn green; in that case, GODDAMNIT, I'd like to be able to glance at my phone to see what those latest messages are ("The wait is too long; we're going to the other pub."). Yet, it's technically illegal to do that.
All of you morons make it impossible to have nice things; the rest of us have to labor under the politically correct fantasy that we, too, have shit for brains.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @09:48PM
the rest of us have to labor under the politically correct fantasy
And this is why we cannot be nice people! Idiot Republicans who think there is a thing called "political correctness". At least this one is intelligent enough to follow the law, even if not enough to understand it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @10:25PM
The laws are adapter to the most stupid people that the government has to handle. Use your brains to bypass their enforcement instead. Can't enforce what cannot be proven nor known.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:54AM (3 children)
My phone pairs with my car.
My car asks if I want it to read incoming text messages aloud. I answer with yes or no.
I can push a button on the steering wheel and ask to car to send a text message to anyone in my phone's phone book, and then recite the message aloud. Car reads it back, I say yes or no. Done. I never need look away from the road.
This problem has been solved for quite a while now, at least since 2012.
The options required to support this is just bluetooth.
The smarts can be cheaply built into the car, and probably is in most new cars already.
Voice reco is a thing.
Or it could be totally built into the phone without any car integration.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:46AM
s/t
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday April 15 2017, @07:47AM (1 child)
As TFS points out, the problem is the cognitive load, not just looking away from the road.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:13PM
As TFS points out, the problem is the cognitive load, not just looking away from the road.
Well, TFS has some cognitive dissonance. The conclusion from the quoted material:
manual entry led to slower reaction times and significantly more eyes-off-road glances than voice-to-text input using both smartphones and Google Glass. Glass' HUD function required only a change in eye direction to read and respond to text messages, rather than the more disruptive change in head and body posture associated with smartphones. Participants also reported that Glass was easier to use and interfered less with driving than did the other devices tested.
The conclusion TFS draws from that: ZOMG texting evil bad.
The conclusion I draw here: Hands-free eyes-free solution from GP would be even better than the google glass solution which won "best in show" as cited by TFS above. The cognitive load seems a distant secondary factor. "Looking away" is the big distraction, which GP's solution avoids completely.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Appalbarry on Friday April 14 2017, @10:27PM (2 children)
I'm old enough to remember the days before "smartphones" and "texting" were invented. It's really pretty amazing that we never, ever had car accidents, no matter how bad the conditions, no matter how beat up our vehicles, and even if we ere stinking drunk. Really. The outrage about texting and riving isn't just about easy income from writing tickets at street corners, or easy claims refusals for insurance companies, it's about turning back the clock to the times when we never had any automobile accidents, ever.
(Note #1: to every goof that claims they can operate a smartphone without degrading their driving ability, there was a time when when people honestly argued that they were safer drivers when stinking drunk, and that they would never wear a seatbelt because it was better to be "thrown clear" of an accident.)
(Note #2: back in the days when we never, ever had any car accidents, the cops always claimed that "Speed was a factor" when an accident happened. Although arguably, yes, a parked car doesn't usually scream out of control and kill the occupants, it's alway seemed like a claim as dubious as the now fashionable "distracted driving was a factor," usually based on "we found cel phone in the car, so let's blame that.")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:51AM (1 child)
Nobody ever claimed to be a safer driver "when stinking drunk"; they did, and do, claim to be adequate (if not better) drivers when buzzed, or even just after a couple drinks during dinner.
And you know what? Those people are right.
The laws are insane. Why? Because you can test blood alcohol content. Same thing here: You can more or less test whether a person was using a texting service while driving. Anything that can be tested gives the authoritarian, no-it-all bureaucrats a raging boner that does nothing but ruin the lives of perfectly safe drivers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:54AM
Forgive me.
Then again, "no-it-all" still kind of makes sense.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Friday April 14 2017, @10:48PM (6 children)
I think this boils down to that different brain regions can't be occupied with two task. But different regions can work different tasks in parallel. So the problem can't be solved by texting via visual means. It has to be through voice however it's solved technically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:02AM
That's not what I heard about brains (have forgotten source, but it seemed aboveboard) -- to use a computer analogy, brains single task for conscious activity. Any multi tasking is handled by dumb co-processors, the autonomous portions of the system (heart rate, digestion, individual muscle coordination etc). Brains can task switch pretty quickly for conscious activities, but there isn't any real parallelism.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 15 2017, @04:38AM (4 children)
Not necessary.
Example: try to drive while speaking in a foreign language that you know but don't speak regularly, see how it goes.
If the example doesn't apply to your conditions, try the same with a problem you can solve with pen on paper, except you know you go in your mind while driving (e.g. extract as square root).
(actually, it's safer to not do any of the above, I don't want to have your life on my conscience.)
Now, not all the tasks will be that complicated, but any task will steal a more or less from the capacity of your brain. Even some easy tasks may prove fatal while driving (don't believe me? I think daydreaming qualify as an easy task, right?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:20PM (1 child)
the sensation of having "brain cycles overloaded" is an interesting one - live translation of languages (a few hours is real work!)
Self-driving cars, can't arrive fast enough....;-)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:58PM
I won't use one unless I can't avoid it. I'm a software engineer, occasionally doing QA work, I trust my human senses more than I trust a software.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:16PM (1 child)
Example: try to drive while speaking in a foreign language that you know but don't speak regularly, see how it goes.
It's hard. Harder than you might expect. But if your passenger is navigating and speaks only that language....
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:55PM
As an immigrant who needed to take driving lessons with a driving instructor in the new home country some months after arrival, I know it very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Informative) by ledow on Friday April 14 2017, @11:13PM (1 child)
It's ALWAYS a Bad Idea to DO ANYTHING ELSE While DRIVING
FTFY.
If you're in a "self-driving" car, depending on your jurisdiction, model of car, local law, etc. then you're either still legally driving (i.e. DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE, even if the car says it's self-driving) or you're legally not (in which case the above doesn't apply, do what you like).
Does ANYONE really think they should be fucking texting while driving whether they dictating each letter, doing it telepathically or using semaphore? Get off the road, if so.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:58AM
It's ALWAYS a Bad Idea to DO ANYTHING ELSE While DRIVING
No, its actually not.
Its good to engage in conversation, look around occasionally, change your seat position, adjust the temperature, maybe listen to the radio.
Staring unblinkingly at the road ahead is not conducive to remaining awake.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.