Blog
Silicon Valley Nation: Distracted driving opportunity
Brian Fuller
12/5/2012 7:01 AM EST
New government guidelines
To regulators, it doesn't matter whether it's a phone in the hand or phone functionality on your in-car touch screen; it's still distraction.
In February NHTSA released proposed guidelines
This is just Phase 1. Phase 2 guidelines will consider portable devices not built into the car; Phase 3 guidelines may address voice-activated controls to minimize distraction in factory-installed aftermarket and portable devices.
Some suggest voice recognition and speech-to-text technologies will carry the day, but at least in the next few years, you're going to have to look away from the road in some form to make sure what you said is getting represented properly as a message or instruction or note.
Some suggest that heads-up display technology (like the stuff Rockwell Collins does for aircraft) can solve the problem, but not really: You may have the road in your distance vision, but you're still focusing on the window.
On the other hand, even if making a phone connection in the car were almost telepathic, just the simple act of talking with someone can decrease driver attention, according to a Carnegie Mellon study.
In the near term, I'd suggest one solution. Companies like Sensor Platforms are leveraging algorithms to give sensor-laden smart phones the intelligence we expect from them. For example, if the phone is in your back pocket, the software will know, by reading sensor data, that it shouldn't "butt-dial" your ex-boss.
Extend that into the car in the next few generations and you can imagine a use case in which you simply can't text while driving. Or the vehicle electronics that your phone ties into refuses to allow you text in other ways.
Ultimately, electronics will win the day. A sensor-laden car will actually allow you to be as distracted as you want because it'll be called an autonomous vehicle at that point.
Until then, how would you approach the problem?
Related stories :
--Silicon Valley Nation: Probing how we are driven to distraction
--Data, voice drive different connected-car markets
To regulators, it doesn't matter whether it's a phone in the hand or phone functionality on your in-car touch screen; it's still distraction.
In February NHTSA released proposed guidelines
"to ensure the systems or devices (auto makers) provide in their vehicles are less likely to distract the driver with tasks not directly relevant to safely operating the vehicle, or cause undue distraction by engaging the driver's eyes or hands for more than a very limited duration while driving."
This is just Phase 1. Phase 2 guidelines will consider portable devices not built into the car; Phase 3 guidelines may address voice-activated controls to minimize distraction in factory-installed aftermarket and portable devices.
Some suggest voice recognition and speech-to-text technologies will carry the day, but at least in the next few years, you're going to have to look away from the road in some form to make sure what you said is getting represented properly as a message or instruction or note.
Some suggest that heads-up display technology (like the stuff Rockwell Collins does for aircraft) can solve the problem, but not really: You may have the road in your distance vision, but you're still focusing on the window.
On the other hand, even if making a phone connection in the car were almost telepathic, just the simple act of talking with someone can decrease driver attention, according to a Carnegie Mellon study.
In the near term, I'd suggest one solution. Companies like Sensor Platforms are leveraging algorithms to give sensor-laden smart phones the intelligence we expect from them. For example, if the phone is in your back pocket, the software will know, by reading sensor data, that it shouldn't "butt-dial" your ex-boss.
Extend that into the car in the next few generations and you can imagine a use case in which you simply can't text while driving. Or the vehicle electronics that your phone ties into refuses to allow you text in other ways.
Ultimately, electronics will win the day. A sensor-laden car will actually allow you to be as distracted as you want because it'll be called an autonomous vehicle at that point.
Until then, how would you approach the problem?
Related stories :
--Silicon Valley Nation: Probing how we are driven to distraction
--Data, voice drive different connected-car markets
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
SylvieBarak
12/5/2012 1:00 PM EST
I don't think we'll really be safe on the roads until cars drive themselves. On the other hand, at least we don't drink and drive as much anymore... I was watching MadMen the other week and it's crazy to see people driving around taking swigs out of whiskey bottles on the road. Then again, cars weren't as fast back then
Sign in to Reply
Quickbadger
12/6/2012 10:09 AM EST
You must be talking about the "legal" speed instituted during the peanut farmer's reign. The average car back then was was much more powerful (more V-8s on the road).
I remember back when tooling along at 80+ was acceptable in many areas of the country. Especially on Ike's new roads!
BTW - I was a very young passenger.
Sign in to Reply
Brian Fuller2
12/5/2012 1:50 PM EST
In addition, cars were a lot bigger and while Force equals Mass times Acceleration, vehicles by virtue of their metal and size had some protective qualities as well.
And by the by, without dating myself too much, I remember those seatbelt-less days when certain adults had a drink in hand as we tooled merrily down the road. (Mad Men is wonderful for stirring those recollections!)
Sign in to Reply
1Sparky
12/6/2012 1:03 AM EST
well, I think that if your car is so boring to drive, you can't be bothered...take the bus! I have been flying a lot this year and have seen the Ford-Lincoln MKZ-X ads a hundred times and they're trying to market this whizzy car system to completely non-technical people and I never see them really using this 'driving system.' but is is way too complicated and suffers the touchscreen shortcomings: 'I can call all functions with one button'...it has been Controls work better in communicating vehicle status and control...doesn't anyone stay awake in class anymore?! me? I don't need all the computer junk in my car...that Motorola 8-track player was enough complication!
Sign in to Reply
Brian Fuller2
12/6/2012 1:02 PM EST
Sparky, for me, the allure is on long trips (although Bob Dobkin at Linear has a BMW that makes bumper-to-bumper traffic less stressful because it drives itself)... You're driving from LA east or SF to LA or NY to Boston or NY to Florida and there are vast stretches of interstate on which you should be able to just surrender control and relax.
Driving through some mountains or windy roads would be another story. That's where driving is a blast.
Sign in to Reply
1Sparky
12/6/2012 1:06 AM EST
phantom-edit killed a sentence: Analog Controls are better than Digital in the cockpit, even cars...
Sign in to Reply
WKetel
12/8/2012 10:37 PM EST
First of all, over 80% of ALL accidents are caused by driver inattention of some degree. This does include drunks, who understandably have concentration problems. And a phone conversation is quite distracting no matter how the link is made. It has very little to do with holding the phone, although dialing is a different case. The problem is that more distractions are being provided, and using them takes thought away from driving. Some controls are a lot more distracting than others, but it is the attention taken away from driving that is the problem. No effective laws will be passed because there is just too much money to be made selling all of these distractions, which the marketing people have convinced the masses that they "really need". And unfortunately money talks loud enough to make lawmakers listen. That much money talks far louder than safety concerns and loss of life. So until adding all of the distractions becomes unprofitable there is no way to get rid of them.
Sign in to Reply